Fi  »  t  r^  i  i  ai 


CE  COTT 

COH-ECTIO^f 
OF 

NORTH     CAROLINIANA 


^ 


r,  '  '  I  111     I  iiipi  iiii ' 
. .^J  ,L, 


ifPflHiff'!]''!:' 


P;  C.  HENKEL 

r 

VINDICATES  HIMSELF 


AMINST 


THE  FOUL  CALUMNIES  ID  MISREPRESENTATMS 


OF  THE  JS7   CALLED 


^'EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN  TENNESSEE  SYNOD  RE-ORGANIZED,'^ 


CONTAINED  IN  THE  MlfTOTES  OF  ITS  SESSION 


HEU3 


IN 


ST.  JOHN'g  CHURCH, 

I 

CATAWBA     COUNTY,    N.  C. 

i 

From  the  12th  to  the  Mlth  of  OctoUri  1850. 


SALEMj   N.  C: 

PRINTED     BY  BLUM     &     SOMi 

1851. 


% 


To  THK  Ki:Ai)(':n 


It  is  a  fact  well  known  to  thousands,  that  some  time  in  the  spring  of 
1845,  the  Kev.  Adam  Miller,  (formerly  a  member  of  the  Ev.  Luth, 
Tenn.  Synod,)  was  accused  of  being  the  father  of  a  bastard  child.  And,, 
whereas  the  said  31iller  is  not  content  with  having  ruined  his  own  char- 
acter, and  bringing  reproach  upon  his  family;  but  is  making  every  effort 
in  his  power,  unjustly  to  tarnish  the  character  of  our  Synod,  and  particu- 
larl}'  to  destroy  ray  reputation  as  a  minister :  I  deem  it  not  only  a  privi- 
lege, but  an  imperative  duty  I  owe  U  myself,  to  lift  my  feeble  pen  in  my 
own  defence ;  since  recently  the  mo^t  nefarious  attempts  have  been  made 
to  destroy  my  reputation.  It  appears  that  Mr.  Miller,  and  those  who 
sympathise  with  him,  are  not  satistijd  peaceably  to  do  the  work  of  Him, 
whose  servants  they  claim  to  be,  but  resort  to  every  intrigue,  if  possible 
to  injure  my  reputation,  and  also  tlat  of  our  Synod.  It  will  be  appre- 
hended, by  referring  to  their  minutes,  (year  1850,  pages  13  to  18,)  that 
I  am  variously  charged  of  imprudeitand  blasphemous  conduct,  relative 
to  the  reading  of  their  minutes,  &c.,  which,  if  correct,  would  have  a  ten- 
dency to  do  me  a  serious  injury. 

Be  it  known,  therefore,  that  in  tit  spring  of  1850, 1  and  my  assistant. 
Rev.  H.  Goodman,  when  apprehending  that  some  of  the  more  illiterate 
part  of  our  church  members,  were  somewhat  difficulted  to  discover  the 
falsity  and  futility  of  the  seven  grave  charges  against  our  Synod,  con- 
sidered it  a  duty  devolving  uponfus,  to  render  general  satisfaction  ta 
all,  v/hich  could  not  conveniently  pe  done  otherwise  than  by  reading, 
and  giving  them  a  general  and  piiblic  refutation;  which,  at  the  voice 
of  the  congregations,  was  perforuud,  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  every 
unprejudiced  mind,  as  hundreds  AFOuld  testify. 

Now,  dear  reader,  it  is  my  intention,  to  set  forth  matters  of  fact  in 
my  own  defence,  since  recently  some  very  dangerous  attempts  have 
been  made  against  me,  too  insufferably  mean  not  to  be  known,  at  least 
by  those  who  have  regard  for  safety  and  honesty.  I  humbly  trust,  no 
one  will  censure  me  for  making  tae  following  plain  defence,  after  they 
shall  have  given  it  an  examination,  It  is  true,  some  may  at  first  thought, 
conclude  that  it  is  stooping  almo.'^fi  too  low,  to  notice  such  a  wicked  set. 
I,  however,  beg  leave  to  differ  from  such,  particularly  since  the  glaring 
and  foul  misrepresentations  are  iii  print.  I,  nevertheless,  do  not  ex- 
pect that  this  will  stop  their  awful  fulminations,  as  I  have  abundant 
reason  to  know  that  there  is  almost  no  measure  too  low  and  mean  for 
some  of  tliem  to  resort  to. 

I  shall  feel  myself  perfectly  at  liberty  in  future,  to  notice  any  far- 
ther publication,  or  not.  I  shall  therefore  only  present  to  the  reader's 
notice  in  this,  such  facts  as  may  be  necessary  to  vindicate  my  charac- 
ter, and  somewhat  to  illustrate  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  M.  and  his 
friends,  together  with  his  Synod,  are  treating  me. 

I  humbly  pray  that  my  enemies  and  bitter  persecutors,  may  speedi- 
ly repent,  ere  it  be  too  late.  And  that  those  who  may  have  been  kept 
in  the  dark  by  designing,  wicked  men,  may  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the- 
truth,  and  embrace  it,  is  the  prayer  of  the  reader's  humble  servant. 

r,  C.  HENKEL.. 


I 


SECTION  r. 

Dear  Reader  I  If  Mr.  I^Iiller  and  some  of  his  party,  had  only  compar- 
ed mo  to  < Bull-dogs,'  and  ^Jack-asses,'  as  he  frequently  has  done,  I 
should  not  have  lifted  my  pen  to  iiotice  it.  And  even  for  him  and  his 
party  to  pronounce  me  a  liar,  in  Ihe  region  of  country  where  I  am 
personally  known,  I  do  not  fear,  neither  do  I  much  regard  it,  as  ho 
cannot  induce  any  honorable  persoa  to  believe  any  such  thing.  But 
for  him  and  his  Synod,  to  publish  to  the  world,  in  print,  notorious 
falsehoods  against  me,  shall  not  be  permitted,  and  passed  over  in  silence, 
as  it  might  induce  persons  at  a  distance,  and  generations  to  come,  to 
believe  them,  | 

Now,  Mr.  Miller,  do  you  not  know  that  it  is  against  the  law,  to  com- 
pare a  human  to  brutes  ?  or  do  you  not  care  for  law,  either  civil  or 
moral  ?  It  seems  you  do  not.  Sir,  deny  if  you  please,  that  you  have 
compared  me  to  the  brutes  above  mentioned ;  and  I  assure  you,  that  I 
can  make  it  appear,  by  men  as  resi^ectable  as  there  is  any  need  to  men- 
tion. Or  did  you  intend  to  provokome  to  bring  suit,  so  that  you  might 
have  an  opportunity  to  let  men  sTv^ar  for  you,  who  can  testify  to  what 
they  have  neither  seen  nor  heard.  You  may  feel  thankful  that  you 
have  abused  a  man  who  wishes  yoiunoharm,  and  that  would  do  you  no 
injury,  when  it  is  in  his  power.  I  humbly  pray  that  you  may  speedily 
repent  of  your  wickedness,  before  it  be  eternally  too  late.  I  am  sorry 
that  you  have  suffered  such  foul  misrepresentations  to  appear  before 
the  public  in  print,  as  appear  in  the  minutes  of  your  last  session.  Why 
did  you  suffer  it  ?     Was  it  because  you  loved  the  truth  ?     Surely  not. 

Mr.  Miller  !  Why  do  you  wish  to  break  me  down  ?  Have  ycu  not 
said  that  I  am  the  very  man  you  wish  to  break  down  ?  Sir,  deny  it  if 
you  please;  and  whenever  called  upon,  I  am  prepared  to  prove  that  a 
devoted  friend  of  yours  has  said  so.  But,  I  suppose  you  think,  it 
makes  no  difference  how  a  '  Jack-asB,'  or  a  '  Bull-dog,'  is  treated ;  and 
as  you  have  compared  me  to  such,  I  of  course,  can  expect  no  other 
treatment  from  you,  than  might  be  expected  you  would  give  a  ^  BuU- 
<iog,'  that  would  not  bark  to  your  notion,  or  fight  for  you,  to  screen 
and  cover  your  dirty  conduct ;  or  that  an  ass  might  expect  to  receive 
from  a  Balaam,  when  it  refused  to  carry  him  in  the  way  where  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord  stood  with  a  dravn  sword,  ready  to  slay  him,  ("  be- 
cause thy  way  is  perverse  before  me.") 

Now  Mr.  M.,  is  your  conduct  christian  ?  Is  it  moral  ?  Or  is  it  hu- 
man, to  compare  a  man  to  brutes  ?  Indeed,  this  shows,  that  if  you 
were  in  possession  of  facts  against  any  of  us,  as  exist  against  your 
character,  we  would  not  be  allowed  to  say  one  word  about  you,  but 
what  you  would  make  heaven  and  earth  awfully  to  fulminate.  Your 
conduct  and  conversation  is  very  chaste  indeed ! ! !  No  wonder  that 
some  of  your  followers  can  have  the  impudence  to  style  me  a  [  muly- 
bull.'  Oh  !  shame  ! !  It  becomes  you  indeed,  to  tell  the  public,  (page 
IT,)  "that  it  is  Miller  and  not  a  Eenkel  which  has  become  a  subject  of 
persecution ! !  l'^  Dear  reader,  judge  for  yourself. 


Furthermore,  as  there  is  a  distorted  relation  of  inatter  given  in  the 
jninutes  of  the  so  called  "Re-organized  Synod/'  and  certain  notes 
draughted  and  underplotted  by  some  unknown  pen  :  for,  I  am  creoibly 
informed,  that  those  notes  were  not  drawn  up,  read,  and  sanctioned  in 
the  session  of  the  so  called  "Ec-organized  Synod;"  and  in  addition,  I 
apprehend  that  they  must  be  the  production  of  some  one  individual, 
as  will  appear  from  page  14,  where  it  is  said  i  "  If  this  is  not  sin- 
ning against'  the  Holy  Ghost,  I  am  mistaken.''  I  from  hence  conclude 
that  the  secretary  was  quite  bigoted,  or  the  above  idea  is  correct. 
Otherwise,  he  would  have  said,  ice  are  mistaken,  instead  of  "  I  am" 
&c.  And  whereas  the  whole  scope  of  the  notes,  together  with  the  dis- 
torted source  from  whence  .they  are  drawn,  is  nothing  niore  than  a 
piece  of  diabolical  perversion  and  misrepresentation ;  and  that  the 
reader  may  not  only  have  my  ipse  dixit  to  rely  upon,  I  shall  here  let 
my  worthy  brethren  from  Miller's  and  St.  John's  churches,  testify. 
The  public  can  rest  assured,  that  those  who  gave  and  undersigned  the 
following,  are  men  of  undoubted  veracity,  and  think  it  beneath  their 
dignity  to  bear  testimony  concerning  things  which  never  transpired 
within  their  own  observation. 

Their  replies  are  as  follows,  to  wit : 

Miller's  Church,  Catawba  County,  N.  C,  June  16,  1851. 
Whereas  a  petition  was  gotten  up  at  our  church,  dated  Sept.  15, 
1850,  and  sent  to  the  so  called  "Re-organized  E.  L.  T.  S.,"  signed  by 
a  few  refractory  persons,  seemingly  with  no  other  intention  than,  if 
possible,  to  ruin  the  reputation  of  our  Pastor,  P.  C.  Henkel.  'J  he  pe- 
tition sets  forth  things,  which  are  notoriously  not  so.  Now,  were  it 
not  that  the  misrepresentations  are  in  print,  we  would  not  in  the  least 
regard  them,  as  they  can  do  to  the  said  Henkel  no  injury  in  the  region 
of  country  where  he  is  personally  known.  But  in  justice  to  his  person 
and  reputation  abroad,  and  to  generations  arising,  duty  constrains  us 
to  vindicate  his  character,  as  it  cannot  be  impeached,  when  nothing  but 
the  truth  is  told. 

Be  it  known  therefore,  that  it  was  the  desire  of  the  congregation  to 
have  the  minutes  of  the  so  called  "Re-organized  Synod,"  read  public- 
ly in  our  church,  and  the  allegations  therein  contained,  (against  our  Syn- 
od) answered;  which  was  done  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  every  can- 
did and  honest  mind.  That  it  was  the  desire  of  the  congregation  to 
have  the  minutes  read,  &c.,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  vote  was 
taken,  whether  or  not  they  should  be  read ;  and  the  unanimous  voice 
was,  to  have  them  read. 

The  above  mentioned  petitioners,  say  in  their  petition  :*  "  At  one 
time  he  proposed  to  read  them  as  they  were  written,  and  at  another 
time,  he  proposed  to  read  them  as  they  meant  or  as  they    ought  to 

*  We  make  our  quotations  from  a  copy  of  the   original  petitions 
^dersigned^^a  true  copy  of  the  petition  from  Miller's  church,"  by 
Wm.  b.  Deal.     The  reason  we  quote  from  it  is,  that  we  apprehend 
foioe  alteration  made  by  their  Synod.  • 


fead."  Petitioners  !  this  statement  is  notoriously  incorrect;  for  there 
was  no  proposal  mac'le  at  two  different  times,  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  minutes  were  to  be  read.  We  tell  you  that  you  have  contemptu- 
ously misrepresented  Henkel's  language.  He  never  said  that  he  would 
"  read  them  as  they  meant  or  as  they  ought  to  read"  (merely.) 
The  truth  is,  he  stated  to  the  congregation,  that  the  minutes  very 
frequently  expressed  themselves  in  such  a  manner,  that  he  did  not 
think,  they  said  what  they  intended  to  say ;  and  referred  to  such  por- 
tions of  the  minutes  as  the  following,  viz :  (page  14  minutes  of  1849,) 
where  it  is  said;  '^They  say,  that  they  addressed  them  in  1847,  in  a 
petition  requesting  them  not  to  depart  from  the  true  doctrine  &  discipline 
of  the  church,  but  to  remain  steadfast  to  the  constitution,  &c.,  upon 
which,  Mr.  H  remarked  that  he  did  not  think,  that  it  was  their  inten- 
tion to  admonish  our  Synod,  "not  to  depart  from  the  true  doctrine 
and  discipline  of  the  church,"  when  we  had  been  accused  of  having 
already  departed  from  them  both.  Also  page  15  :  "  They  then  peti- 
tioned for  a  redress  of  grievances,  and,  if  not  misinformed,  there  were 
between  three  and  four  hundred  petitioners  for  Mr.  Miller  and  some 
twenty  or  thirty  against  him,  and  some  of  those  have  since  said  that 
they  did  not  understand  the  design  of  their  petition  when  they  signed  it." 
Upon  this  Mr.  H.  remarked,  that  he  did  not  think  it  said  what  it  wished 
to  say ;  unless  it  wishes  to  tell  the  church  that  the  "  300  or  400  petition- 
ers did  not  understand  the  design  of  their  petition  when  they  signed 
it."  Also  page  18f  where  it  is  said:  "1st,  The  constitution  of  the  Ten-: 
nessee  Synod  contains  sis  unalterable  articles  ;  they  were  termed  un- 
alterable, because  they  were  considered  fully  scriptural ;  upon  these 
they  were  constituted  a  body,  and  pledged  themselves  accordinglv  to 
act  in  good  faith  towards  each  other.  In  the  faithful  compliance  with 
these  principles,  their  union  and  existence  as  a  body  was  sustained. 
They  have  violated  these  principles,  and  their  existence  as  a  body,  be- 
came disorganized,  and  are  no  longer  the  Tennessee  Synod."  Upon 
this  he  also  remarked,  that  he  did  not  think  that  it  said  what  it  wish- 
ed to  say,  because  it  accuses  the  Articles  of  having  violated  their  own 
principles.  -* 

Now  petitioners !  we  will  tell  you  how  Mr.  H.  said  he  would  read 
the  minutes.  He  said  he  would  read  them  as  they  ought  to  read,  so 
as  to  be  against  our  Synod,- — that  he  would  set  them  with  all  their  horns 
against  us  :  and  then  he  would  answer  them  to  the  satisfaction  of  ev- 
ery unprejudiced  mind;  which  we  think  he  did.  But  who  authorized 
you  only  to  give  half  of  his  statements,  and  thus  give  them  a  difierent 
construction  ?  You  remind  us  of  the  lame  dog  which  the  man  lifted 
over  the  stile, — which  then  turned  round  and  bit  him  in  the  leg.  Pe- 
titioners !  you  have  corrupted  Henkel's  language,  and  read  it  'false,' 
and  in  the  most  important  instances,  acted  the  part  of  '  skippers.^  In 
relation  to  what  you  say  about  "contending  witli  the  enemy,"  we  an- 
swer, that  you  have  not  stated  it  as  Henkel  did.  He  said  the  phrase 
is  ambigUQuS;  and  implied  to  be  on  the  enemy's  side,  &c.     Again,  you 


G 

say,  ^'  lie  further  said,  tliat  tlie  petitioners  were  forced  to  sign  the  pe- 
tition contrary  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  conscience."  This  is  not 
true.  Mr.  H.  said,  according  to  the  language  of  the  minutes,  page  15, 
Mr.  Miller's  own  ''  petitioners  did  not  understand  the  design  of  their  pe- 
tition when  they  signed  it." 

Again,  you  say,  '^  Mr.  H.  denied  one  ordained  minister  with  lay-dele- 
gates, could  be  a  body  (a  constitutional  Synod)  to  transact  business; 
therefore  Mr.  G.  Easterly  and  delegates,  in  re-organizing  the  Synod, 
was  not  a  proper  Synod."  We  cannot  forbear  telling  the  petitioners 
that  this  is  notoriously  false.  The  truth  is,  Henkel  stated,  that  accord- 
ing to  the  language  of  the  minutes  quoted  from  Rev.  D.  Henkel,  (page 
18)  their  Synod  is  no  Synod.  You  say,  "  He  further  stated  that  Rev. 
Easterly  had  been  an  excellent  minister,  but  that  he  had  become  child- 
ish." This  is  another  of  their  wicked  perversions.  Mr.  H.  said,  that 
he  believed,  that  if  Mr.  Easterly  had  had  the  facts  on  both  sides,  he 
would  have  pursued  a  diiferent  course ;  but  hoped,  that  what  Mr.  E. 
did,  he  did  it  in  ignorance,  thinking  that  he  was  doing  Grod  a  service. 
The  sentence  continues:  "  that  Mr.  Easterly  had  not  been  properly  in- 
formed on  both  sides  of  the  controversy  between  us,  and  that  Miller 
had  controlled  him  in  the  course  which  he  had  taken  in  re-organizing 
the  Synod,  as  well  as  the  whole  contents  of  the  minutes."  This  is  not 
correct.  Henkel  made  no  such  positive  affirmation.  The  truth  is  as 
follows,  viz  :  He  said  he  had  reason  to  believe,  that  Mr.  E.  was  not 
fully  in  possession  of  the  information  on  both  side^  and  that  he  believ- 
ed that,  to  a  great  extent,  Mr.  31.  operated  upon  nis  sympathies,  by 
his  heavy  appeals  in  behalf  of  his  innocence,  and  his  awful  denuncia- 
tions against  us.  The  sentence  continues  :  '^  that  Mr.  Miller  made  the 
petitioners  say  what  they  did  not  intend  to  say."  Petitioners  !  you 
are  a  crooked  set.  If  you  can  only  be  in  the  paths  of  perversion,  you 
seem  to  be  satisfied.  Henkel  made  no  such  unconditional  and  positive 
affirmation.  But  stated,  that  if  Mr.  Miller  had  written  the  petitions 
from  North  Carolina,  and  provided  the  petitions  are  to  be  understood 
as  they  read,  he  supposed  Mr.  M.  had  caused  them  to  say  w^hat  they 
did  not  intend ;  as  he  did  not  think  that  the  petitioners  wished  to  speak 
against  themselves. 

As  to  what  you  say  in  relation  to  '  typographical'  and  ^grammatical 
errors,'  we  tell  you  that  he  did  point  some  of  them  out.  But  you  say, 
^'  this  course  seemed  to  us  as  if  the  man's  case  was  a  desperate  one; — 
it  looked  like  a  busy  man  employed  in  doing  nothing."  We  tell  you 
that  we  do  not  think  you  believe  what  you  say  :  for,  had  it  '  seemed'  to 
you  '  like  a  busy  man  doing  nothing,'  you  would  not  have  said  one 
word  about  it.  For,  if  it  was  equivalent  to  doing  nothing,  you  should 
not  have  criminated  yourselves  in  misrepresenting  his  language.  But 
you  feel  irabittered  against  him,  because  he  set  forth  the  truth  in  such 
a  clear  manner,  as  to  convince  those  who  wished  to  be  convinced ;  oth- 
erwise you  would  not  have  suffered  men  to  sign  your  petition  who  were 
not  present  when  the  minutes  were  read,  and  who  never  at  all  heard 
him  read  them.    This  reminds  us  of  the  language  of  soldiers,  who  were 


« 


i 

counseled  to  say:  '^His  disciples  came  and  stole  lilm  away  while  wc 
slept,"  It  seems  you  would  strain  at  a  knat,  and  swallow  a  camel : — 
you  would  misrepresent  the  language  of  an  innocent  and  honest  man, 
who  in  your  eye,  'is  busy  in  doing  nothing/  if  you  only  by  so  doing, 
can  support  an  adulterer  and  a  wicked  cause. 

You  say,  ''we  are  willing  to  confess  with  the  Eev.  D.  Henkel,  that 
in  all  human  compositions  there  may  be  errors,  and  that  there  may  bo 
such  in  these  minutes,  but  in  our  humble  view  the  minutes  are  plain 
and  convey  th-eir  own  meaning  independent  of  Mr.  Henkel's  gloss. '^ 

Answer:  We  readily  admit,  and  P.  C.  Henkel  never  at  all  signified, 
that  human  composition  is  not  subject  to  error.  But  you  would  signify 
that  he  did.  Now  we  do  you  no  injustice,  when  telling  you,  that  you 
maliciously  misrepresent  him.  You  say,  "  there  may  be  such  in  these 
minutes."  There  may  !  Astonishing ! !  You  say,  "  We  have  read  the 
minutes  of  last  session  with  great  care,  and  cannot  discover  those  errors 
and  contradictions  which  caviling  has  attached  to  them,"  &c.  Well, 
we  would  suppose  they  are  almost  infallible  ! !  Nay,  perfect  corruption. 
''  They  convey  their  own  meaning,"  you  say,  "  independent  of  Mr. 
Henkel's  gloss."  Very  well,  then  we  suppose  they  mean  precisely 
what  they  say.  Then  the  Articles  of  the  Constitution  have  violated 
their  own  principles  !  (See  page  IS.)  But  do  not  read  it,  as  though 
the  Tennessee  Synod  committed  the  violations ;  for  this  is  what  you 
call  "  Henkel's  glo^s^.  1**^ 

Petitioners  !  AVe  are  sorry  to  sec  that  you  have  resorted  to  such  un- 
just, unfortunate  and  unchristian  measures,  to  support  your  ungodly 
cause,  and  yet,  with  an  air  of  foul  triumph,  say,  "for,  whenever  a 
cause  is  to  be  supported  by  falsehood,  we  can  have  no  dependence  in  it.^' 
Would  to  God,  you  were  only  sincere  in  the  expression ;  but  it  is  not 
possible,  for  .all  who  heard  Mr.  H.  read  the  minutes,  will,  when  regard- 
ing truth,  be  constrained  to  say,  he  did  you  no  injustice,  as  the  min- 
utes were  read  according  to  their  print,  and  in  those  places  where  it  is 
quite  obvious  that  they  speak  against  themselves,  he  made  the  most 
charitable  amendments,  altogether  in  your  favor,  and  against  our  Syn- 
od, in  order  clearly  to  illustrate,  when  giving  you  all  you  could  ask, 
that  the  allegations  against  our  Synod,  are  utterly  unfounded. 

Now,  dear  reader,  before  we  close,  we  deem  it  our  duty  to  apprize- 
you  of  the  fact,  that  a  devoted  personal  friend  of  the  liev.  A.  Miller, 
manifested  the  boldness  to  disclose  their  design,  at  least  in  part.  Ho 
said,  that  the  Rev.  A.  M.  said,  that  Henkel  is  the  very  man  he  wished 
to  break  down.  And  behold  !  how  have  they  managed  it?  Why  they 
have  the  Rev.  A.  M.  to  draw  up  their  petition,  so  as  to  pervert  the 
truth  as  badly  as  possible,  and  then  get  men  to  sign  the  petition,  who 
never  heard  Henkel  read  the  minutes  at  all.  And  the  principal  intended 
witnesses,  who  heard  Henkel  read  the  minutes,  refused  to  sign  the  peti- 
tion. But  why  ?  Answer :  "  They  Avere  afraid  suit  might  be  brought, 
and  there  would  none  be  left  to  bear  testimony."  This  is  their  own  lan- 
guage. Whenever  it  is  necessary,  we  are  prepared  to  give  their  own 
language  as  to  the  wi^itcr  of  their  petitions  alsjo.    And  also,  at  any  time, 


if  desired,  we  can  give  the  names  of  the  three  "children  of  Beliel/'  who' 
were  about  to  witness  "against  Naboth,  in  the  presence  of  the  people," 
&c.,  in  behalf  of  the  Rev.  King  Ahab*  *****.«  Hast  thou  found 
me,  0  mine  enemy?  And  he  answered,  I  have  found  thee  :  because 
thou  hast  sold  thyself  to  work  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord.'^ 

"  This  know  also,  that  in  the  last  days  perilous  times  shall  come. 
For  men  shall  be  lovers  of  their  own  selves,  covetous,  boasters,  proud, 
blasphemers,  disobedient  to  parents,  unthankful,  unholy,  without  natur- 
al affection,  truce  breakers,  false  accusers,  incontinent,  fierce,  despisers 
of  those  that  are  good,  traitors,  heady,  high-minded,  lovers  of  pleas- 
ure more  than  lovers  of  God  :  Having  a  form  of  godliness,  but  deny- 
ing the  power  thereof :  from  such  turn  away.  For  of  this  sort  are  they 
which  creep  into  houses,  and  lead  captive  silly  women  laden  with  sins, 
led  away  with  divers  lusts.  But  they  shall  proceed  no  further  :  for 
their  folly  shall  be  manifest  unto  all  men,  as  theirs  also  was." 

Oh  that  our  enemies  might  repent  whilst  they  are  on  mercy's  side 
of  the  grave. 

Let  this  suffice  for  the  present,  on  this  subject,  to  which   we  sub- 
scribe our  names,  and  ever  will  defend. 

DANIEL  MILLER,  SOLOMON  EKERD, 

DAVID  MILLER,  LEVI  F.  YOUNT, 

DAVID  E.  MILLER,  WM.  F.  BOVEY, 

JOHN  BARGER,  W.,  LAWSON  HOLLER, 

JESSE  MILLER,  PHILIP  H.  DIETZ, 

JOSEPH  MILLER,  HENRY  W  HUFFMAN. 
HENRY  YOUNT,  Sen., 

REPLY  TO  THE   "CONCURRENT  TESTIMONY." 

Catawba  County,  N.  C,  August  18th,  1851. 

We,  the  members  of  St.  John's  Church,  of  the  County  and  State 
above  written,  having  seen  a  petition  from  Miller's  Church,  of  this 
County  and  State,  addressed  to  the  so  called  "Evangelical  Lutheran 
Tennessee  Synod,  Re-organized,"  (at  its  October  session,  2nd  Sunday, 
1850,)  and  signed  by  several  refractory  characters,  and  having  also 
seen  a  piece,  styled  a  "concurrent  testimony"  to  the  petition  from 
Miller's  church,  gotten  up  and  signed  by  Wm.  S,  Deal  and  George  P. 
Sigman,  which  is  a  downright  perversion  of  facts.  Now,  inasmuch  as 
the  so  called  "concurrent  testimony,"  in  part  of  its  misrepresentations, 
corresponds  with  the  wicked  and  corrupt  statements  in  the  petition 
from  Miller's  church;  and  as  our  brethren  at  that  church,  who  have  a 
deep  regard  for  truth  and  good  morals,  have  corrected  that  little  refrac- 
tory club,  it  will  be  unnecessary  for  us  to  notice  those  particulars, 
■wherein  the  two  instruments  are  of  the  same  import  entirely,  as  we 
■would  be  constrained,  when  regai'ding  truth,  to  identify  what  our  breth- 
ren have  said  in  answer  to  the  petitioners.  As  to  the  concurrent  testi- 
3nony,  it  bears  date  Oct.  14th^  1850^  which  was  Monday  during  their 


!l 

l^rolo-AeloJ  session  of  Synod,  that  this  foul  testimony  was  i3olstcred  up, 
hffording  ample  opportunity  to  concur,  and  by  the  aid  of  additional 
council,  more  grossly  to  misrepresent. 

Deeming  it  superfluous  to  notice  those  particulars  wherein  the  tw6 
perverting  instruments  arc  of  the  same  import,  for  the  reason  already 
iissigncjd,  we  proceed  immediately  to  notice  the  additional  perversions 
and  misrepresentations  in  the  '' coucui'rcnt  testimony.'' 
^  The  first  additional  item  we  discoviir,  reads:  '^  "He  spent  some 
lime  in  laboring  to  prove  that  Mr.  Miller  in  his  remarks  on  page  5 
of  the  minutes,  called  the  Word  of  God  a  symbol."  To  this  wo  answer, 
Uiat  ^Ir.  Itenkel  did  not  only  labor  to  pfove,  but  did  clearly  show,  in 
few  words  from  the  reading  of  the  minutes  oil  the  abo\n3  cited  page, 
that  it  is  the  case. 

The  minutes  read :  "But,  thai  if  to  believe  the  Holy  Scriptures  as 
they  were  revealed  to  man,  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  if  to  ad- 
here to  the  Augustan  Confession  ani  the  Constitution  of  the  Tennessee 
(Synod,  constituted  a  man  a  member  of  that  body,  that  he  never  had 
forsakcji  those  symbols  of  the  church."  Henkel  remarked,  that  /hose 
is  a  demonstrative  adjective  pronoun,  and  that  it  points  out  the  sub- 
ject or  subjects  to  which  it  relates ;  and  that  the  subjects  raentidued 
are  "  Holy  Scriptures,"—"  Augustan  Confession,"—"  and  Constitution 
of  the  Tennessee  Synod.'^  He'  then  stated,  that  this  and  these  indicate 
the  latter,  or  last  meiitioned;  thaf  and  fhose  the  former,  or  fitst  men- 
tioned. He  then  remarked  that  "Holy  Scriptures"  are  the  first  mention- 
ed object,  and  that,  of  course  they  musi.  be  the  symbols,  according  to 
the  language  used.  He  further  remarked,  that  "  Augustan  Confession," 
is  singular,  and  that  it  would  not  be  correct  to  say,  those  symbols,  even 
if  they  were  first  mentioned;  and  in  addition,  he  stated  that  the  "  Con- 
stitution" is  no  symbol. 

Again  we  read  :  "  Mr.  Henkel  following  in  the  minutes,  page  8,  read 
ihe  following  in  the  minutes."  "  They  express  their  judgment  that 
Miller  must  have  been  a  sore  enemy  to  the  Devil's  kingdom.  They 
gave  it  as  their  opiniortj  that  it  is  just  what  the  devil  wants,  that  is, 
to  get  him  to  quit  preaching.  And  further,  that  those  who  are  oppos- 
ing him  have  a  zeal  for  God,  but  not  according  to  knowledge."  "  On 
this  Mr.  H.  remarked  that  the  language  employed  conveyed  the  fol- 
lowing idea  t  That  it  is  just  what  the  devil  wants  to  get  the  devil  to 
iquit  preaching,  and  those  who  were  opposing  the  devil  had  a  zeal  foii 
God,  but  not  according  to  knowledge." 

Answer  :  As  to  the  remarks  Henkel  made  on  the  quotation  from 
the  minutes,  we  do  not  recollect  so  distinctly,  and  therefore  cannot 
affirm  so  positively.  But  this  we  do  recollect,  that  he  said  he  did  not 
suppose  that  the  sentence  ("  They  give  it  as  their  opinion  that  it  is 
just  what  the  devil  wants,  that  is,  to  get  him  to  quit  preaching,")  reads 

*  We  also  quote  from  the  original  copy,  undersigned  a  true  copy^ 
l?y  W^m.  S.  Deal. 


10 

as  it  was  desired.  And  in  our  judgment  it  docs  not.  We  will  liowev 
er  let  those  who  are  better  acquainted  with  the  construction  of  sentences, 
&c.,  judge. 

He  nevertheless,  corrected  the  language,  and  gave  it  the  most  favor* 
able  reading  he  could  command;  and  throughout  the  body  of  the 
minutes,  he  did  as  he  promised  in  the  commencement  of  its  reading,  viz  1 
That  in  those  places  where  it  is  obvious,  that  the  minutes  speak  against 
themselves,  and  at  times  accused  other  objects  of  doing  things  that  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  is  not  possible,  (such  as  the  Articles  violating 
their  own  principles,  see  page  18,)  he  said,  1  will  turn  it  with  all  its 
liorns  against  us,  by  giving  it  the  most  favorable  reading  they  could 
desire;  and  that  he  trusted  under  such  circumstances,  no  one,  who  is 
desirous  of  knowing  the  truth,  could  take  offence  at  him.  Indeed,  it 
was  far  from  rendering  offence^  excepting  to  a  few,  who  were  prede- 
termined in  their  course,  regardless  of  truth.  There  were  some  on  the 
other  hand,  w^ho,  after  hearing  the  minutes  read,  and  allegations  answer- 
ed, avowed  their  satisfaction  with  the  proceedings  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Tennessee  Synod,  that  probably  would  have  otherwise  re- 
mained our  enemies.  This  so  deeply  enraged  Mr.  M.  and  a  few  of  his 
predetermined  advocates,  that  they  will  grasp  almost  any  measure,  to 
ruin  the  said  Henkel. 

The  next  item  reads :  "And  page  13.^^  "  \Yhen  the  Synod,  to  avoid 
complying  with  their  own  condition,  voted  that  127  was  not  an  honor- 
able majority  over  24,  asserted  that  this  was  a  falsehood,  tliat  there  was 
no  such  vote  taken  in  Synod.'^  Answer :  Mr.  H.  did  deny  that  the 
Synod  voted  that  24  was  a  majority  over  127.  Those  who  wish  to 
know  how  the  vote  was  taken,  arc  referred  to  the  minutes  of  that  ses- 
sion. (See  minutes  1846,  page  6.)  Who  could  believe  that  any  set  of 
sensible  men  would  vote  that  24  is  a  majority  over  127. 

The  next  item  reads  :  "  He  (H.)  read  the  clause  on  page  19. — The 
church  decisions  were  considered  final,  and  said,  according  to  the  read- 
ing there  was  a  time  when  church  decisions  were  final,  but  were  not  so 
at  present.  Also  Matt.  18 :  AVhat  they  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound 
in  heaven.  Here,  said  Mr.  H.,  is  a  perversion  of  the  text."  Well, 
Messrs.  Deal  and  Sigman  !  What  do  you  want  with  this  ?  Can  you 
prove  to  the  reverse '/  You  cannot,  unless  you  do  it  from  the  35th 
chapter  of  Matthew ! ! ! 

Again  it  is  said :  "  Mr.  Henkel,  upon  being  asked  on  that  occasion, 
whether  there  was  no  appeal  received  by  the  Synod,  in  Miller's  case, 
positively  denied  that  there  was.  And  on  the  same  occasion  being 
asked  whether  the  Synod  did  not  act  upon  the  case  at  all,  he  evaded  to 
answer  the  question."  We  answer,  relative  to  the  question  concerning 
of  an  appeal,  that  Henkel  answered,  to  my  knowledge,  there  was  not. 
As  to  the  next  question,' whether  Synod  acted  upon  the  case: — We 
answer,  thatWm.  S.  Deal  is  the  man  who  proposed  the  question,  and 
he  was  very  angry  from  every  appearance,  as  every  person  could  hear 
from  his  snappish  declarations,  that  even  could  not  see  his  countenance. 
Asid  Henkel  did  evade  saying  any  morc  to  him,  than  prudence  rcquir- 


II 

r<],  to  stop  a  discussion  with  a  man,  in  a  rage  of  fury.  The  manner 
in  which  Mr.  H.  treated  him,  commends  itself  to  every  prudent  man. 

There  are  a  few  more  items  we  wish  to  notice.  It  is  further  said; 
*^He  denied  in  part,  the  right  of  petition  of  freemen."  Messrs.  D.  and 
S.,  you  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  make  such  a  blind  pretence.  Call 
the  illustration  to  mind  that  Henkel  gave  on  this  subject; — Did  he  not 
t€ll  you  very  correctly,  under  what  circumstances  Synod  would  be  un- 
der obligations  to  grant  the  petitions  of  freemen?  To  illustrate  tho 
subject,  he  said,  suppose  St.  John's  church  would  send  a  delegate  to 
Synod,  authorizing  him  to  withdraw  her  from  Synod,  Did  he  nottHeu 
ask  the  question:  Who  could  hinder  you?  He  answered:  No  one. 
He  then  made  the  following  supposition :  Suppose  you  would  call  a 
Roman  Catholic  to  preach  for  you. — Then  he  asked :  Who  could  hin- 
der you  ?  And  again  answered  :  No  one.  He  then  said,  suppose  the 
congi'egation  would  petition  to  the  next  Synod,  informing  her,  that  tho 
congregation  is  determined  to  act  like  a  set  of  freemen  j  telling  Synod, 
we  have  called  our  minister  to  preach  for  us,  and  Synod  (our  servant) 
must  concur  with  us  in  what  we  have  done ;  otherwise  she  will  act  un- 
constitutional. For  the  Constitution  says  :  "  Both  Pastors  and  Dea- 
cons must  be  called  to  their  office  by  one  or  more  congregations.'' 
Mr.  Henkel  then  asked :  Do  you  suppose  Synod  would  be  bound  to 
grant  their  request,  under  such  circumstances  ?  And  said,  I  know 
your  good  sense  and  deep  regard  for  Christianity  would  answer :  No  it 
would  not. 

But,  W.  S.  D.  and  G-.  P.  S.  would  say :  Synod  is  bound  to  grant 
their  entire  request,  regardless  of  circumstances,  otherwise  it  would  be 
denying  ''  in  pai-t,  the  right  of  petition  of  freemen  ! !  1""  Very  well, 
we  think  we  understand  your  policy  now.  If  adulterers,  whoremon- 
gers, Roman  Catholics  and  what  not,  petition  your  Synod,  you  grant 
all  their  requests,  regardless  of  circumstances,  lest  you  "  deny,  in  party. 
the  right  of  petition  of  freemen."  Yes,  and  A.  M.  and  D.  F.  can  sit 
in  session  with  you,  and  acquiesce  in  sentiment.  It  is  not  very  aston- 
ishing though  ! — Mr.  Henkel,  after  showing  under  what  circumstances 
Synod  is  not  under  obligations  to  grant  the  petitioners'  requests,  show- 
ed, by  varying  the  same  illustration,  when  she  would  be.  Messrs.  D. 
and  S.  continue  :  "  He  said  there  were  signers  to  them  petitions  from 
N.  C  ,  in  1847,  which  did  not  understand  the  design  of  the  petitions, 
when  they  signed ;  but  referred  to  no  particular  one."  To  this  we 
answer :  that  Mr.  H.  said,  according  to  the  language  of  the  minutes, 
page  15,  that  some  of  the  three  or  four  hundred  petitioners  for  Mr.  M. 
did  not  understand  the  design  of  their  petition  when  they  signed,  and 
clearly  showed,  that  it  is  just  what  the  natural  reading  of  the  minutes 
sets  forth.  "  But  referred  to  no  particular  one  ! !  I*^  Messrs.  D.  and  S,, 
are  you  naturally  so  ignorant  ? — Or  are  you  determined  to  be  crooked  ? 
Mr.  H.  never  intended  to  point  out  any  particular  one,  but  confined 
himself  to  the  language  of  the  minutes,  which  clearly  shows  that  it  was 
some  of  the  three  or  four  hundred. 

Again  you  say,  "Mr.  Henkel  was  requested  to  read  Mr.  Eastxjrly's 


12 

letter  r.ppended  to  the  minutes,  wbieli  was  indefinitely  postponed.'-* 
^'  Requested  to  read,"  kc.  Requested  by  whom  ?  By  the  congrega-. 
tion? — If  this  is  what  you  intend,  you  lie  notoriously.  Or  do  you 
wish  to  make  the  impression  on  the  reader's  mind  that  ITenkel  mani- 
fested a  reluctanee  to  read  the  k'tter  ?  If  so,  you  tell  an  untruth  Did 
not  Henkel  state,  after  he  was  through  with  the  body  of  the  minutes, 
that  he  would  now  read  the  letter  also,  if  the  congregation  desired  it  ? 
Did  not  the  congregation  conclude  that  it  would  be  too  late  in  the  even- 
ing to  have  the  letter  read  also,  aud  to  refer  to  Mr.  E's.  quotations,, 
wjjich  Ilenkel  said  he  would  do,  provided  the  congregation  said  he> 
should  read  it.  Did  not  Mr.  H.  say,  if  you  wish  me  to  read  it,  I  will 
do  so,  if  it  even  takes  me  till  9  or  16  o'clock  in  the  night  t  Was  it 
not  then  put  to  vote,  whether  or  not  it  should  be  read  that  evening^ 
You  know  it  was.  And  consequently  deferred  to  some  other  lime  by 
the  vote  of  thecongregation.  iVud  yet  you  ean  say,  ''it  was  indefinite- 
ly postponed.'^  This  can  only  be  true,  in  one  sense,  that  is :  there  wa& 
no  particular  time  set,  when  the  letter  was  to  be  read.  If  this  is  the 
sense  you  intended,  (which,  from  its  connexion,  seems  not  to  lie  the 
case)  why  did  you  not  give  a  full  and  a  fair  statement  ?  You  no  doubt 
saw  that  if  you  would  give  a  fair  statement,  it  could  be  no  advantage 
to  your  ungodly  cause,  and,  of  course,  could  not  injure  Mr.  11.  Hence 
you  keep  as  dark  as  possible,  (just  like  your  leader,)  so  that  when 
closely  pursued,  you  are  ready  with  a  slip-gap,  so  that  you  can  dodge 
in  another  direction. 

The  last  item  in  reference  to  this  reads :  '^  But  remarked  that  the 
texts  quoted  by  Mr.  Easterly  in  his  letter  stood  as  proof  to  the  re  ader,, 
and  said,  if  I  read  that  letter,  I  will  prove  quite  different  from  those 
texts  to  what  Easterly  has  intended  to  prove  from  them." 

To  this  we  answer,  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  glaring  misrepresenta- 
tions that  could  well  be  made.  Mr,  PL  did  remark,  that  merely  to  name 
the  chapters  and  verses,  without  reading  their  contents,  might  by  some 
be  supposed  to  prove,  that  Mr.  E's  affirmations  are  thereby  fully  estab- 
lished. But  Mr.  H.  said,  if  I  read  the  letter,  I  will  read  the  texts  quot- 
ed ;  so  that  the  congregation  may  be  enabled  to  judge  as  to  the  correct- 
ness of  Mr.  E^s  sentiments,  and  the  applicability  of  the  texts  quoted  to 
the  subjects  under  consideration. 

Now,  dear  reader,  we  have  briefly  answered  the  testimony  of  the  said 
W.  S.  D.  and  (x.  P.  S,,  not  that  we  are  in  the  least  partial  to  any  man, 
or  set  of  men ;  but  seeing  the  most  unjust  measures  taken  to  injure  our 
Pastor,  P.  C.  Henkel,  whom  we  have  known  from  a  child,  we  are  hap- 
py to  say,  that  his  character  is  unimpeachable.  We,  therefore,  cannot 
suffer  a  set  of  designing  men  to  misrepresent  him,  and  tarnish  his  char- 
acter abroad  in  print.  Had  that  foul  Synod  not  went  so  far  as  to  print 
their  foul  perversions  and  misrepresentations,  we  should  not  have  been 
at  the  trouble  to  expose  their  v.icked  attempts,  as  they  have  not,  and 
cannot  injure  the  said  Henkel,  \vhere  he  is  personally  known.  This  hi& 
enemies  are  well  aware  of,  and  therefore  they  have  adopted  another 
plan. 


13 

Wc  humbly  pray  that  the  time  may  speedily  roll  on  when  repentance 
and  reformation  of  life,  on  the  part  of  our  enemies,  may  take  place. 
We  add  no  more.     Kespectfully  submitted  and  undersigned.  • 
ELI  E.  J)EAL,  MOSES  HERMAN, 

FREDERICK  SMITH,  GEORGE  H.  SIGMAN, 

ELI  SIGMAN,  JOEL  SIMMON, 

TOBIAS  MOSER,  H.  INGOLD, 

B.  C.  ALLEN,  DAVID  SMITH. 

That  I  read  the  minutes  correctly,  Mr.  Wm.  S.  Deal  publicly  acknowU 
edged.  This,  however,  is  not  so  distinctly  recollected  by  all  who  were 
present ;  those  therefore,  who  do  fully  recollect  this  fact,  do  separate- 
ly testify,  as  follows,  to  wit : 

"St.  John's  Church,  Catawba  County,  N.  C. 
"We,  the  undersigned,  were  present  when  the  Rev.  P.  C.  Henkel  read 
the  minutes  of  the  Evangelical  L.  T.  Synod,  so  called.  When  Mr. 
Henkel  had  read  the  minutes,  Mr.  Wm.  S,  Deal  said  to  Mr.  Henkel, 
had  you  called  on  me  to  read  that  minute,  I  could  have  read  it  that  any 
plain  scholar  could  have  understood  it.  Whereupon  Mr.  Henkel  re- 
marked, and  said,  I  have  read  it  right.  Mr.  Wm.  S.  Deal  then  said,. 
I  know  you  did.'* 

GEORGE  H.  SIGMAN,        F.  R.  SHOOK, 
TOBIAS  MOSER,  ELI  E.  DEAL, 

EU  SIG3iAN.  MOSES  HERMAN. 


SECTION   II. 

It  is  apprehended  from  the  above  declaration,  that  the  extract  em- 
bodied in  the  minutes  of  the  so  called  "  Re.  S."  for  the  year  1850,  i* 
utterly  a  mass  of  perverted  stuff;  and  consequently,  were  it  not  for  Mr^ 
M's  incessant  importunities  and  attempts  to  make  false  impressions  ovt 
the  minds  of  the  weaker  class,  and  those  at  a  distance,  I  should  say  no 
fliore  in  reply,  as  the  fountain  from  whence  the  diabolical  underplot- 
ted  notes  is  sufficiently  defeated  to  satisfy  those  of  ready  discernment.. 

But  experience  of  five  long  years,  and  many  abuses  thrown  upon  me  by 
an  untiring  persecutor  and  a  taunting  contriver,  teach  me  the  necessity 
to  be  very  plain.     But,  in  order  not  to  extend  the  present  pages  be- 
yond a  reasonable  limit,  I  shall  confine  myself  more  particularly  to  the 
consideration  of  the  undcrplotted  notes.     But,  before  entering  upon 
this,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  to  remark,  that  the  reading  of  the  minutes 
ia  the  churches,  and  the  answering  of  the  allegations  therein  contain- 
ed, seems  to  have  excited  the  feelings  of  my  opjtonents  to  such  an  ex- 
tent, that  it  reminds  me  of  an  interrupted  hornets^nest ; — tliough  they 
say,  it  seemed  to  them  "  like  a  busy  man  doing  nothing." — Which,  if 
correct,  wisdom  would  have  directed  them  to  say :  It  is  not  vvorthy  of 
notice. — And  consequently  that  long  harangue,  and  piece  of  abuse  and 
reproach,  would  not  have  been  printed ;  and,  of  course,  in  that  case, 
xjpthing  moxe  would  have  been,  said  about  it. 


u 

"VVhcreas  the  minutes  were  rer:d  according  (o  tLcir  print,  and  as  I 
corrected  them  in  those  places  where  it  is  qnite  obvious  that  they  speab 
against  themselves,  and  so  corrected  them  as  to  read  altogether  in  their 
favor,  that  every  unprejudiced  mind  could  see  that  I  was  doing  them 
justice,  and  meeting  their  allegations  in  a  dress  as  fair  as  they  could 
Lave  expressed  thcm^  they  should  not  have  given  their  perversions  in 
return  ;  but  should  at  least  have  tried  to  imitate  the  golden  rule  so  far 
as  to  give  my  expressions  justice.  And  if  this  little  "Re.  S.''  knew 
no  better,  as  to  what  I  said,  tlian  a  few  ambitious  characters  could  cer- 
tify, (together  with  a  parcel  of  men,  who  testify  that  I  read  the  min- 
utes false,  &c.,  and  at  the  same  time  must  confess  that  they  did  not 
hear  me  read  the  minutes  at  all,)  it  seems  that  common  honesty  should 
have  forbidden  this  little  "  E.e.  8.''  to  publish  their  stuff  to  the  world. 
But  it  seems  that  the  petition  and  concurrent  testimony  was  not  per- 
verse enough  to  suit  their  malice  ;  hence  they  must  resort  to  a  plan  to 
make  their  ridiculous  perversions  and  misrepresentations  appear  in>. 
augmented  colors. 

I  shall  yet  briefly  notice  what  this  gigantic  "Re.  S."  did,  through  its 
committee,  relative  to  the  examination  of  the  minutes  of  its  previous 
session.  It  is  said,  (page  7  last  min.)  after  their  encomiums  to  ther 
printer,  &c.,  "  We  have  nevertheless  discovered  some  slight  typogra- 
phical errors,  and  also  some  unintentional  inaccuracies  in  diction,  but 
none  to  affect  materially  the  sense  intended  to  be  conveyed.  But  so 
far  as  truth  and  principle  are  concerned,  we  have  discovered  no  errors; 
and  therefore  recommend  the  adoption  of  this  report.^'  Well,  proba- 
bly I  said  too  much  above,  when  stating,  and  corrected  them  in  those 
places  where  it  is  quite  ohvioiis  that  they  speak  against  themselves  ;  for 
I  apprehend  that  A.  Miller  is  at  the  head,  and  D.  Forrester  at  the  foot  of 
the  committee  of  examination;  and  both,  no  doubt,  perfect  graduates  T 
And  I,  as  some  have  said,  graduated  under  Professor  Rev.  J.  R.  Mo- 
ser,  at  the  old  Machine.  Very  well.  But  I  think  all  your  literary 
tyros  would,  when  contrasted  with  the  Rev.  J.  R.  Moser,  suffer  seri- 
ously. 

But,  it  is  said,  some  of  the  best  of  scholars  at  Newton  examined  the 
minutes,  and  all  was  found  correct ;  and  this  gives  weight  to  the  mat- 
ter, and  has  a  tendency  to  break  you  down.*  Very  well.  I  shall  ex- 
amine the  matter  ;  and  then  you  may  call  upon  your  Newton  Scholars, 
and  let  them  display  their  literary  powers  as  much  as  they  please. — 
You  confess  though,   that  there  are  errors  in  the  minutes ;  But  not 

*  I  have  my  doubts,  whether  any  scholars  at  Newton  examined  the 
minutes,  and  pronounced  them  correct ;  unless  they  were  enemies  to 
our  Synod,  and  did  it  to  give  weight  to  a  persecutor's  cause.  I  care 
but  little  for  what  such  men  may  say,  so  far  as  it  concerns  my  person. 
But  for  any  man  to  make  pretensions  that  a  wrong  thing  is  correct,  witk 
no  other  intention  than  to  give  an  unwearied  abuser,  (in  his  ignorance 
and  malice,)  a  chance  to  make  a  false  impression  on  the  minds  of  igno- 
rant people,  is  unchristian  and  mean^ — be  they  who  they  may. 


1.) 

j^'Lcrc  irnth  and  jyrinciplc  are  concerned  I :  "Well,  then  it  secni.s 
that  in  some  part  of  the  minuter  ncitlier  truth  nor  princi' 
j>le  are  concerned  I ! !  If  I  had  known  that  you  would  make 
ii«uch  an  acknowledgment  as  this,  I  believe  I  v/ould  have  de- 
ferred reading  your  minutes  a  few  months  longer,  and  would  havo 
tried  to  have  given  them  a  charitable  correction.  But,  it  might  be, 
that  you  would  have  bitten  me  in  the  heel  for  so  doing.  And  in  fact, 
it  might  have  led  you  to  accuse  me  of  being  '•  skilled  in  the  art  of  spi- 
ritualizing." Consequently,  you  can  expect  me  in  future  to  understand 
your  writings  exactly  as  they  read.  As  you  say,  page  13  :  **  Is  not 
the  language  sufficiently  plain  to  convey  its  own  meaning  to  an  intel- 
ligent reader  ? — or  does  he  intend  an  open  insult  ?"  If  it  in.sults  you, 
to  correct  your  extraordinarily  deep,  sober,  comprehensive  and  sound 
ideas  !  I  shall  in  future  endeavor  to  understand  your  writings,  verbatim, 
et  literatim,  et  punctuatim.  But  then,  for  an  idea,  in  many  places,  I 
know  I  shall  be  greatly  at  a  loss;  for  instance,  (pa^e  5,  last  min.)  I 
read  of  a  ^'committee  appointed  to  extract  petition's!**^  How  do  you 
extract  petitions  ?  See  also  page  4th,  &c.  And,  page  16,  I  read : 
*^  On  this  Mr.  H.  remarked  that  the  language  employed,  conveyed  the 
following  idea:  that  it  is  just  what  the  devil  wanted,  to  get  the  devil 
to  quit  preaching,  and  those  who  were  opposing  the  devil  had  a  zeal 
for  God,  but  not  according  to  knov,'ledge."''(See  page  14.)^  See  page 
14  of  what  ? — I  can  find  no  such  language  on  page  14  of  any  pamphlet 
or  book  that  I  possess,  unless  this  should  happen  to  be  a  14th  page. 
You  have  given  us  an  errata ;  but  to  what  purpose  ?  To  prevent  any 
t)ne  from  discovering  errors  in  your  minutes  ?  If  so,  you  have  failed. 
But  I  suppose  if  a  committee  would  examine  it  by  order  of  your  Syn- 
od, they  would  conclude  that,  "so  far  as  truth  and  principle  are  con- 
cerned, we  have  discovered  no  errors  \ !  '^  Come,  publish  "  truth"  and 
^'principle"  to  the  world,  and  you  will  stand  in  need  of  no  errata,  as 
to  your  other  mistakes ;  for  so  far  as  I  would  have  occasion  to  read 
your  productions,  I  trust  they  would  meet  with  as  honorable  correction 
as  you  well  could  make  yourselves  j  though  it  be  at  the  peril  of  receiv- 
ing abuse. 

SECTION  III. 

I  shall  now  attend  to  those  notes,  commencing  on  page  13,  in  which 
I  perceive,  there  is  neither  truth  nor  principle,  excepting  the  few  texts 
of  Scripture  and  a  few  other  little  clauses,  in  themselves  considered. 

As  to  the  phrase  or  address,  "Miller's  Minutes,"  I  confess  that  I 
have  used  it  frequently,  and  all  that  I  have  ever  seen  or  heard  relative 
to  this,  does  not  teach  me  any  impropriety  in  so  using  it.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  I  have  enough  to  satisfy  ray  own  mind,  as  to  its  applica- 
bility. As  to  the  partial  honor  of  him,  being  the  author  of  the  minutes, 
I  conclude  it  is  due  him.  That  he  denies  acting  "  with  the  body  du- 
ring the  preceding  part  of  the  session,"  does  not  prove,  that  he  is  not 
its  author.     And  with  mo  it  docs  not  matter  who  m;iv  be  its  author. 


1(1 

The  nest  note  says  .'  ^Olu  H.  sdcJins  to  be  skilled  iu  tiic  aft  of'  spin^-? 
Ualizing.  Who  authoi^ized  hhii  to  give  an  abstract  meaning  of  the! 
language  used  in  the  minutes  V^ 

Answer :  This  ia  already  answered  by  my  brethren  from  Miller'^ 
church.  See  their  reply.  It  seems  this  little  '^  Re.  S."  is  skilled  iri 
the  art  of  per\'er.sion  ;ind  uiisreprC^^entation.  I  return  the  compliment, 
and  ask  :  wha  authon;Jed  you  to  tell  the  world  suc'a  f<*Isehoods,  and  to' 
have  men  to  testify  that  it  is  so,  Who  know  nothing  about  it.  Ah  ! 
you  would  say,  our  intended  witnesses  we  have  kept  back,  to  be  ready 
in  case  suit  might  be  brought  I !  I  Header  !  would  you  fear  the  bringing 
of  suit,  in  case  you  acted  honestly  and  uprightly  ?  Surely  you  would 
not  hesitate  a  incrment.  But  when  men  are  laying  a  plot  of  conspiracy, 
they  may  act  in  that  way,  particularly,  when  they  have  no  nfore  affec- 
tion for  the  object  of  their  abuse,  than  to  coiripare  me  to  brutes  of  dif- 
ferent kinds,  Iveader  !  can  there  be  one  spark  oi  honesty  or  Christianity 
in  such  men  7  Further,  it  is  said  in  the  same  note  i  ^*  Is  not  the  lan- 
guage sufficiently  plain  to  convey  its  own  meaning  to  an.  intelligent 
reader  ?  &c.-^and  does  not  need  Mr.  H's  spiritualization  to  render  it 
intelligible.^'  Well,  tum  to  page  15  of  your  minutes  for  1849 ;  where 
you  will  read  :  ''  They  then  petitioned  foi'  a  redress  of  grievances,  and 
(if  not  misinformed)  there  were  between  three  and  four  hundred  peti- 
tioners for  Mr.  IMiller,  and'^somc  twenty  or  thirty  against'  him;  and 
some  of  those  have  since  said,  that  the}'^  ctid  not  understand  the  design 
of  their  petition,  v.'hen  they  signed  it."  Well,  I  suppose  it  is  all  gra)n-- 
matical  enough.  But,  Messrs.  A.  M.  and  D.  F.;,  together  with  the 
ballance  of  yrmr  committee.  Synod, — and  if  you  desire, — say,-  '"Newtoa 
scholars,"  tel)  me,  according  to  the  "intelligible"  language  of  the  minutes,- 
which  class  of  petitioners  did  not  understand  the  cfesign  of  their  peti- 
tion, when  they  signed  it.  If  you  answer,  the  three  or  four  hundred, 
I  shall  acknowledge  tliat  it  is  so.  But  Avhy  do  you  tell  the  com- 
munity that  your  own  petitioners  did  not  understand  the  design*  of 
their  petition,  when  they  signed  it !  But,  if  yoti  say  that  it  wag-  the 
twenty  or  thirty,  I  tell  yon  the  Issnguage  conveys  no  such  idea,  and  I 
defy  you  with  all  youi'  polished  literary  accomplishments,  Newton 
scholars,  graduates  and  what  not^  to  m^ike  it  appear.  This,  however, 
may  be  one  of  those  places  where  truth,  and  jrnnciple  are  not  concern- 
e.d!  I  -:im  not  laboring  to  satisfy  the  learned,  but  the  illiterate. 
If  the  nbove  would  say,  some  of  these  have  since  said,  instead  of  say- 
ing "some  cf( I'hosc  have  since  said,"  &c.,  then  we  could  understand, 
when  taking-  it  as  it  reads,  that  somt)  of  the  twenty  ov  thirty  wore  refer- 
red to,  as  tne  ones  wht>  "  did  not  understand  the  design  of  their  peti- 
tion, wiieri  they  signed  it."  Let  the  common  reader  take  the  follow- 
ing example  :  Suppose  I  have  three  or  four  hundred  red  apples,  and 
some  twenty  or  thirty  green  ones,  and  I  were  then  to  affirm,  that  those 
are  for  Johu  and  these  are  for  ])ick,  can  you  tell  me,  which  are  John's 
and  which  are  Pick's  apples  ?  I  suppose  it  would  puzzle  the  three 
children  of  Belial,  (the  principal  intended  witnesses  against  me,)  to- 
gether with  those  who  bear  testimony  against  me  in  the  minutcS;  who 


1 


i 


hever  heard  me  reai  them,  but  were  absent,  anil  probably  asleep  at 
the  time  to  answer  it. — And  in  all  probability  the  polished  graduates, 
A.  M.  and  D.  V,,  otherwise  they  v.ould  not  have  said  :  ''  But  so  far  as 
f r nth  im^  principle  are  concetincd,  we  have  discovered  no  errors;" — 
xm(\.  also  said :  ^'  Is  not  the  langua^^e  sufficiently  plain  to  convey  its 
own  meaninir,"  &c.  The  note  continues  :  "He  must  be  an  cxceedinoj 
learned  man."  Would  it  be  spiritualizinsr  to  correct  this  sentence 
thus,  and  say  :  "  lie  must  be  an  axcecdimlij  learned  man  V  If  so, 
keep  your  grammtir  for  your  own  purposes,  well  shrouded  in  the  man- 
tle of  nonsense.  It  is  possible  for  mo  or  any  one  else,  to  be  an  "  exceed-' 
ing"  man  in  many  respects,  i.  e.,  great  in  quantity,  extent,  &c.,  with- 
out involving  the  idea  of  graduation  at  some  literary  institute.  You 
should  remember,  or  first  learn,  that  ^'  exceeding  "  is  a  participial  ad- 
jective, and  no  adverb.  My  present  limits  will  not  permit  me,  to  notice 
all  the  ^^  exceeding  learned"  (!)  phrases  in  your  minutes,  even  where 
*' truth  and  prviiciple  are  not  concerned." 

You  seem  to  wish  the  information  where  I  graduated,  after  which, 
you  conclude  that,  "  In  our  humble  view  such  a  course  of  conduct  is 
beneath  the  dignity  of  a  gentleman,  much  less  a  christian."  "  Such 
a  course." — What  kind  of  a  course?  To  make  such  opprobious  epith- 
ets, and  to  make  inquiry  for  such  information  ?  If  so,  why  have  you 
done  so?  If,  however,  ^'such"  has  a  reference  to  another  source  to 
fetch  its  conclusion,  you  had  better  let  your  conclusion  follow  in  quick 
succession,  so  as  to  make  it  intelligible,  lest  such  a  feeble  graduate  as 
you  are  trying  to  make  sport  of,  might  turn  the  tables  against  him, 
who  is  trying  in  his  intrigue  to  break  the  poor  creature  down, — 
the  creature,  which  the  graceful  lips  of  the  Rev.  A.  M.  could  in  his 
humble  and  christian-like  tone,  compare  to  a  stiff  necked  Jack-ass. 
Such  conduct  as  this,  I  suppose  is  christian  enough  for  your  Synod, 
particularly,  when  one  so  holy  and  godly,  as  the  Rev.  A.  M.  utters  it. 

It  matters  not  where  I  graduated ;  even  if  it  were  in  a  log-cabin 
shingled  with  clapboards,  and  ornamented  with  a  wooden  chimney,  and 
such  fine  furniture  as  may  be  customary  in  such  stately  institutes.  If 
I  have  only  the  required  education,  and  natural  talents,  together  with 
industry  sufficient  to  discharge  the  duties  incumbent  upon  me ;  and 
also  the  christian  fortitude,  &c.,  to  bear  the  many  heavy  persecutions 
and  foul  calumnies,  (such  as  are  attempted  to  be  heaped  upon  me  by 
your  Synod  and  otherwise,)  using  only  such  liberties  as  christians  in 
all  ages  enjoyed,  to  expose  the  devices  of  Satan;  leaving  the  Almighty 
and  civil  governments  under  his  direction,  to  punish  offenders.  I  feel 
satisfied,  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Judge  of  quick  &  dead,  will  not  reproach 
and  condemn  me  because  I  am  poor,  and  because  I  enjoyed  not  the  pri- 
vileges of  the  rich,  and  pleasures  of  this  world ;  and  also  regularly  to 
graduate  at  some  great  institute.  No  !  I  still  remember  that  my  bless* 
ad  Saviour  was  born  of  a  poor  virgin,  a  manger  is  his  palace.  Under 
the  influence  of  such  considerations,  I  feel  my  sentiments  expand,  and 
my  wishes  acquire  a  turn  of  sublimity,  and  my  throbbing  desires  after 
worldly  grandeur,  die  away. 


IS 

But  where  did  one  of  this  gigantic  1\.  E  L.  T.  iS^uod's  miniHters 

graduate  !**  1 1  *** — I ! ! ?  Give  the  world  this  information,  and  you 

will  have  enough  to  do,  without  trying  to  reproach  me  by  your 
bport,  as  one  of  your  ministers,  also  on  other  occasions,  has  done,  when 
comparing  me  with  a  degree  of  sneering  merriment,  to  the  brutal  crea- 
tion. I  shall  let  the  reader  judge,  whether  your  course  is  not  beneath 
the  dignity  of  a  gentleman  or  christian. 

I  shall  now  pass  on  to  the  next  distorting  note.  It  commences  thus  i 
^*  Mr.  H.  manifests  a  wonderful  knowledge  of  language  when  he  tells 
his  hearers  that  to  contend  with  the  enemy  is  not  grammatical." 
Answer:  I  never  said  that  it  is  not  grammatical  j  but  as  certified  by 
my  brethren,  I  said  that  the  sentences :  **  Their  struggles  with  the 
Generalists," — "  contended  so  hard  with  them,"  &c,,  are  ambiguous, 
and  implied  to  be  on  the  enemies'  side.  Any  person  acquainted  with 
the  rules  of  grammar,  knows,  that  so  far  as  the  parsing  of  these  sen- 
tences is  concerned,  that  they  could  be  parsed  when  substituting  any 
preposition  in  the  English  language  instead  of  the  one  used;  as 
"  prepositions  govern  the  objective  case,"  It  could  be  parsed,  if  it 
would  read :  contended  in  the  enemy,  or  for  the  enemy  ',  around j 
towards^  frorrij  upon,  &c.  But  then  the  phrases  would  assume  diflfer- 
cnt  significations.  Not  every  sentence  that  may  be  parsed  by  the 
rules  of  grammar,  is  free  from  ambiguity ;  neither  doea  any  such  sen- 
tence convey  a  fair  idea.  Now  for  you  to  attempt  to  afiirm,  that  I 
said,  "  to  contend  with  the  enemy,"  is  not  grammatical,  (in  any  other 
sense  than||in  point  of  signification,)  you  afiirm  that  which  is  not  so. 
Again,  in  the  same  note  it  is  said  :  *'  If  he  is  correct  in  his  criticism, 
he  has  not  only  corrected  the  language  in  the  minutes,  but  he  has  con- 
victed the  Almighty  himself  ol  the  grossest  wickedness.  It  seems 
according  to  this  view,  that  the  translators  of  the  Scripture  did  not  un- 
derstand grammar  with  this  learned  divine  I" 

Answ^er:  Did  the  translators  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  English,  on 
all  occasions,  make  the  choicest  selection  of  prepositions,  and  also,  on 
all  occasions,  select  words,  to  convey  the  original  import  of  the  text  in 
the  clearest  sense  possible '/  If  so,  where  is  the  propriety  for  the  criti- 
cisms of  many  of  the  ablest  theologians  ?  Where  the  expediency  for  the 
framers  of  the  constitution  of  the  Tenn.  Synod  to  make  provision,  in 
case  of  dispute,  to  decide  any  such  point,  by  appealing  to  the  languagcw 
in  which  the  Scriptures  were  first  written  ?  It  seems  that  you  view  the 
translators  as  being  inspired ;  and  that  we  are  allowed,  under  no  cir- 
cumstances, to  call  into  question  the  propriety  of  the  present  English 
translation  in  any  respect;  lest,  forsooth,  according  to  the  present 
translation,  in  some  instances,  we  might  discover  certain  ambiguous 
expressions,  and  thus  convict  the  "  Almighty  himself,  of  the  grossest 
wickedness !" 

.     The  inference  you  have  made,  is  a  logical  non-sequitur ;  for  it  does 
not  follow,  that  because  there  are  texts  in  the  English  translation,  uir- 
ing  the  preposdtion.  ^'  ici'fh,"  in  a  similar  manner  as  used  in  your  min- 
utes, (and  even  by  ether  writers)  that  therefore,  bccau.sc  I  affrrmcd; 


10 

that  to  ''  Struggle  with  tho  Genpialisis—to  contend  with  them/'  &c., 
is  ambiguou?,  (that  is,  doubtful,  having  two  meanings,)  this  would 
convict  "  the  Almighty  himself  of  the  grossest  wickedness."  Such  reas- 
oning might  satisfy  a  "  dummkopfe  !" 

Before^you  drew  your  conclusion,  you  should  have  proven  (what 
you  never  can  prove)  that  those  texts  you  refer  to,  cannot  admit  the 
preposition  against  to  take  the  place  of  withj  without  doing  violence 
to  the  texts,  or  injuring  their  primary  import.  Let  the  reader  turn 
to  all  the  portions  of  Scripture  you  have  quoted,  (except  Neh.  25:  1,*) 
and  as  he  reads,  substitute  the  preposition  against,  in  the  place  of  with; 
and  if  this  will  convict  the  Almighty  of  the  grossest  wickedness,  you 
must  have   a  plan  to  spiritualize  matter  to  suit  your  own  perverse 

purposes.  .  . 

The   preposition   against  signifies    "in   opposition    to,    contrary, 
in  contradiction  to,   opposite  to."     Hugh  Blair,  D.  D.  F.  E.  S., 
when  giving  the  difference  between  with  and   by,  says :  "  but   with 
expresses  a  more  close  and  immediate  connexion;  bi/,  a  more  remote  one. 
Again,  another  able  writer  says:  ''with,  the  imperative  oi withan,  to 
ioin.'^     ^' I  will  go  with  hira."     "I  join  him."     Now,   m  the  first 
text  you  quote :  (Deut.  2 :  9.)  Are  the  children  of  Israel  forbidden  tQ 
come  in  a  more  close  and  immediate  connexion  with  the  Moabites,  or 
join  with  them,  (which  is  possible  without  involving  the  idea  of  abiis- 
ing,  injuring,  wronging,  offending  or  distressing   them)  or   were  the 
Israelites  forbidden  to  oppose,  act  contrary  to,  or  contradict,  or  "  dis- 
tress"  them?     Undoubtedly,  the   latter,  which,   in  my  judgment, 
would  be  more  obvious  and  free  from  ambiguity,  to  render  the  phrase 
thus  :  "neither  contend  against  them  in  battle."     Though  it  may  be 
admitted,  that  they  were  not  to  join  them  in  any  sense.     At  any  rate, 
I  am  well  satisfied,  that  it  would  not  convict  "  the  Almighty  himself  of 
the  grossest  wickedness.'^    Sirs :  before  you  affirmed  that  I  am  "  will- 
ful," in  an  error,  you  should  have  proven,  that  I  committed  an  error, 
and  that  too,  with  design.     You  might  as  well  accuse  a  man  of  sinning 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  would  affirm,  that  apo  would  convey  a 
fairer  idea,  when  rendered  from  instead  of  out  of,  as  in  Matt.  3  :  16., 
&c.     You  no  doubt  would  be  ready  to  accuse  and  reproach  such,  by 
saying:  "  he  manifests  a  wonderful  knowledge  of  language,— has  convict- 
ed the  Almighty  himself  of  the  grossest  wickedness— the  translators  of 
the  Scriptures  did  not  understand  grammar  with  this  learned  divme  ! 
And  all  this,  because  this  divine  affirmed,  that  the  prepositions  employ- 
ed, conveyed  a  doubtful  idea ;  and,  that  a  different  rendering  would 
remove  all  scruples.     Though,  I  may  not  have   thought,  that  your 
volume  or  any  other  person's,  in  point  of  sublipiity,  deserved   a  con- 
trast with  the  present  English  translation  of  the  Bible.  o  o  \ 
If  you  will  turn  to  the  Septuagint,  and  examine  the  text  (Deut.  2:  9.) 
and  you  will  find  the  preposition  pros,  in  connexion  with  the  Aocusa^ 
tive,  which  may  justly  be  rendered,  against,  as  in  the  sentence:  "/Va> 

■"  There  is  no  25th  chapter  i^  Nchemiah. 


20 

'/tenCra  me  lactize,  do  iiotkickag^\n<:t  the  pricks,  ^-Escliyl."  This  text 
according  to  the  German  translation,  roads:  " Bu  soht  die  Moahittcr 
nicht  heleitigen  nocli  hehriegen.'"  I  suppose  that  the  judge  who  has 
passed  sentence  upon  me,  (page  14,)  when  he  looks  at  the  German 
translation,  that  the  translator  or  translators  will  suffer  seriously  ;  for 
they  have  omitted  the  preposition  entirely  in  that  clause.  Will  this 
Judge  accuse  him  or  them  with  the  crime  of  having  taken  "  from  the 
words  of  the  book  of  this  prophesy?'*"  And  therefore,  "his  (or  their) 
part/'  shall  be  taken  "out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  cut  of  the  holy  city," 
&c.  If  it  suits  his  ambition,  he  can  do  it  by  the  same  kind  of  reason- 
ing and  inference,  which  led  him  to  sentence  me  so  awfully;  lest,  for- 
sooth, it  might  be  made  to  appear  by  the  translator,  that  he  did  not  al- 
ter or  take  from  the  primary  import  of  the  text,  and  thus  avert  this 
awful  judgment. 

The  next  text  which  is  quoted  against  me,  is  :  Prov.  ^8:  4.  The 
original  (Greek)  has,  perihallousin,  (com.  oi pen  about,  and  hallo^  to 
cast,  throw,  pelt,  &c.  The  German  reads: — "'  Slnd  unwillig  avf  sic.'* 
An  able  Lutheran  (German  Commentator)  renders  this  phrase  thus  : 
^^streiten  icicder  sie,'' — contend  against  them.  It  is  uunecessnry  to 
pursue  this  part  of  the  subject  any  further,  as  the  common  reader  may 
easily  decide,  when  substituting  the  preposition  against j  for  ivitli, 
whether  it  conveys  a  wicked  idea,  or  whether  it  would  "  convict  the 
Almighty  himself  of  the  grossest  wickedness,"  so  to  read  and  under- 
stand them.  Now,  if  to  speak  of  the  Almighty  as  being  opposed  to 
wickedness,  or  of  being  against  it,  convicts  him  of  the  grossest  Avick- 
edness,  I  must  confess,  that  this  "  Ke.  S."  so-called,  has  a  clue  to 
spiritualize  matter,  beyond  my  penetration. 

Again,  page  14,  it  is  said:  "Can  a  man  be  a  safe  teacher  who  would 
thus  willfully  misconstrue  the  word  of  God,  to  suit  his  own  cruel  ambi- 
tion." Sirs :  I  have  never  misconstrued  the  word  of  God.  I  shall 
hold  you  as  a  set  of  columniators,  until  you  prove  your  assertion. 

But,  probably  you  will  condemn  me  for  speaking  of  ambiguity  touch- 
ing the  present  English  translation.  It  will  scarcely  be  pretended, 
that  the  translators  of  the  sacred  volume  did  not  accurately  under- 
stand the  English  language.  It  is  nevertheless  possible,  for  them'  to 
have  employed  prepositions  in  various  texts,  and  also  other  words, 
•which  do  not  convey  the  primary  import  of  the  text,  to  the  nicest 
and  clearest  degree,  in  all  instances.  In  ray  humble  judgment,  it  would 
not  amount  to  blasphemy,  so  to  conclude  :  Unless  you  can  make  it  ap- 
pear, that  they  were  under  the  immediate  guidance  of  inspiration,  at 
least,  whilst  engaged  in  translating.  Now  that  I  have  intimated  no 
more  than  I  am  able  to  maintain,  a  few  instances  from  the  present  trans- 
lation will  be  given.  I  Cor.  13  :  1 — 3.  The  word  agapen,  translated 
charity,  should  undoubtedly  have  a  different  rendering:  It  is  derived 
from  the  verb  agapac, — to  be  strictly  united  in  affection,  to  love,  &c. 
The  German  has  "  Liehe."  The  primary  signification  of  the  word  char- 
ity, is  alms-giving.  Now  it  is  possible  for  a  person  to  give  all  he  pos- 
sesseS;  and  even  his  body  to  be  burned )  and  thus  fill  up  the  measure  of 


21 

tbe  primary  import  of  the  word  charity,  and  at  the  same  time  be  des- 
titute of  love;  and  consequently  nil  deeds  of  charity,  when  performed 
without' the  proper  affection,  would  profit  the  giver  nothinf;.  To  give 
the  word  charity  its  original  signification,  and  pursue  it  in  the  text,  (ac- 
cording to  the  English  translation,)  to  its  ultimate  consequence,  it 
makes  the  Apostle  say,  that  which  the  original  text  will  never  justify, 
VIZ  :  '*If  I  have  all  charity,  and  yet  have  not  charity,  I  am  nothing/* 

Again,  (John  16:  lo.)  "  Kovrbeit,  when  he,  the  spirit  of  truth,  is 
come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth;"'  that  is,  according  to  the  trans- 
lation :  "into  all  truth  whatsoever,  into  truth  of  all  kinds,"  which  holds 
forth  an  idea,  very  different  from  the  intention  of  the  Evangelist,  and 
from  the  original.  Inspired  men  were  not  omniscient.  The  proper 
rendering  is:  '^into  all  tlie  truth ;'^  that  is,  into  all  evangelical 
truth,  all  truth  necessary  for  you  to  know.  I  feel  myself  at  no  loss,  to 
produce  additional  specimens,  if  it  were  necessary. 

The  note  marked  thus  (||)  is  clearly  answered  by  my  worthy  brethren. 

As  to  what  is  said  of  the  note  marked  thus,  (§)  has  also  been  answer- 
ed by  m.y  brethren.  I  shall,  however,  remark,  that  I  never  attempt- 
ed to  show,  what  it  takes  to  constitute  a  Synod,  (when  reading  their 
min.)  in  any  other  way,  than  from  their  own  production  and  ({notation  ; 
(see  min.  page  18,  for  1849,)  where,  in  a  note  we  read :  "A  Synod  is 
a  body  of  minister?  with  lay  deputies,  who  superintend  the  concerns  of 
the  church  under  their  care,  agreeably  to  certain  christian  rules,  found- 
ed upon  a  constitution.'*  What  can  we  infer  from  such  language,  than 
that  a  plurality  of  ministers  is  required  to  constitute  a  Synod  ? — 
Such  language  does  not  prove,  that  one  minister  alone  can 
constitute  or  reorganize  a  Synod ;  having  Rev.  P.  H.  and  J).  H.  as 
judges.  All  that  you  can,  or  have  proven,  in  relation  to  this,  from 
the  pages  and  quotations  you  have  cited  in  your  minutes,  is,  firstly, 
that  a  Synod  is  a  body  of  ministers,  &c.,  (one  minister  is  no  body  of 
ministers  !)  And  secondly,  that  if  a  body  of  ministers,  or  a  Synod, 
makes  a  mutual  agreement  to  meet  at  a  certain  time  and  place,  to  hold 
Synod;  and  should  all  the  regular  ordained  ministers  fail  to  attend, 
except  one,  that  he,  with  licentiates  and  deputies,  would  have  consti- 
tutional authority  to  transact  business,  having  ap}ieared  at  the  consti- 
tutional appointment :  consequently  the  rest  failing  to  attend,  when 
knowing  of  the  appointment,  must  abide  by  the  consequences,  or  pro- 
test against  them.  The  N.  C.  Synod  must  have  viewed  the  subject  in 
this  light;  otherwise  it  would  not  have  acknowledged  J.  E.  Bell  legal- 
ly ordained;  which  ordination  was  performed  at  the  session  to  which 
you  allude.  At  this  period  there  was  no  final  separation  declared,  and 
consequently  the  session  of  which  you  speak,  was  not  the  first  session 
of  the  Tenn.  Synod,  as  you  wish  to  intimate,  for  it  did  not  then  exi^t; 
hence,  the  session  alluded  to,  was  to  all  rules  and  purposes  a  session  of 
the  North  Carolina  Synod. 

The  first  session  of  the  Tenn.  Synod  was  held  in  Solomon's  church, 
(Cove  Creek)  Green  County,  Tenn.,  on  the  17th,  18th  and  19th  days 
of  July,  A.  D.  1820.      This  cession  ^a?  composed  of  four  PastorS;, 


22 

viz;  Jacob  Zink,  Paul  Ilenkcl,  Adam  Miller,  sen.,  Philip  llenkel  and 
Deacon  G.  Easterly,  together  with  19  deputies. 

Now,  the  so  called  '<  Re.  S."  had  no  existence,  till  the  year  1848, 
nnd  in  its  title  pages,  claims  none  antecedent  to  this  date  ;  consequent* 
ly  it  is  approaching  the  fourth  year  of  its  age.  But  the  Evan.  Luth. 
Tenn.  Synod,  will  soon  be  in  its  31st  session. 

If  the  so-called  *'  Pve.  S."  was  designed  to  be  the  original  T.  S.  rt 
should  have  claimed  some  of  its  first  sessions,  at  least ! 

As,  for  one  regular  ordained  minister,  with  catachists  and  lay-dele- 
gates to  transact  business,  when  meeting  pursuant  to  a  regular  Synod's 
own  adjournment,  is  one  thing;  and  for  one  minister  and  delegates  to 
form  a  new  Synod,  or  attempt  to  reorganize  one,  is  another  thing. 
From  dissimilar  objects,  no  one,  but  an  ignorant  or  deceitful  man,  (or 
set  of  men,)  will  draw  identical  conclusions. 

I  shall  now  briefly  notice  the  clause  marked  thus,  (T^)  which  reads : 
^*We  shall  here  insert  Dr.  B's  letter  without  note,  as  it  speaks  for  itself." 
From  this  it  seems  that  the  petitioners  from  Miller's  church,  and  the 
two  men  from  St.  John's,  did  not,  or  could  not  speak  for  themselves. 
It  seems  they  could  not  at  the  first  attempt,  misrepresent  matter  badly 
enough  to  suit  their  cruel  ambition,  to  break  him  down,  whom  one  has 
compared  to  a  Jack-ass,  &c.,  and  some  of  his  followers,  imitating  his 
godly  conversation,  comparing  me  to  a  Muly-bull.  0  !  christian  read- 
er ! !  ie  such  conduct  the  conduct  of  christians  ? 

In  relation  to  the  contents  of  the  letter  of  B.  F.  Bell,  the  celebrated 
and  seemingly  magnanimous  Dr.,  I  answer,  that  so  far  as  it  concerns 
myself,  I  have  proven  that  I  did  not  say  that  the  Rev.  E — .  "was  in 
a  state  of  dotage,  vacillation,  or  what  we  sometimes  call  childishness. *'• 
I  doubt  not,  but  that  Mr.  Bell  was  so  informed.  But  this  magnanir 
mous  Dr.,  before  attempting  to  defame  me,  (as  I  see  that  this  "  letter 
was  intended  to  be  draughted  as  a  note  from  the  word  '^childish"') 
should  have  looked  at  the  source  from  whence  he  obtained  his  informa- 
tion. A  goodly  number  of  those  who  certify  against  me,  were  not 
present  when  the  minutes  were  read,  which  is  their  own  acknowledge- 
ment. And  their  leader  has  frequently  said,  "If  I  go  down,  they  * 
shall  go  down  with  me,"  and  in  order  to  degrade  me  as  much  as  pos- 
sible, at  different  times  he  has  compared  me  to  brutes;  yet  it  seems 
that  his  conversation  is  looked  upon  as  being  in  heaven  !  Oh  !  shame ! ! 
Dr.  B. !  may  I  not  consistently  turn  the  tables ;  and  ask,  who  will  now 
detract  from,  or  defame  my  character,  upon  the  strength  of  such  men's 
affirmations  ?  May  I  not  justly  respond  and  say : — "I  know  that  envy, 
pining  at  the  superiority  of  others,  anger,  like  the  fire  of  iEtna,  feeding 
upon  its  own  substance;  ambition,  in  its  restless  effort,  pulling  down 
disgrace  upon  its  own  head,  will  resort  to  almost  any  means  of  relief; 
**but  he  who  will  charge"  me  with  saying  the  Rev.  G  E.  "was  in 
a  state  of  dotage,  vacillation,  or  what  we  sometimes  call  childishness," 
^'  must  brave  a  falsehood,  at  which  even  impudence  itself  would  blush 

—————     -  ■-  -  "  S""  I    "I  "ii       •  "'— " 

''  Alladincr  (o  the  ministers  of  the  Tenn.  Synod,  generallyr 


9»l  ' 

ijcc."  Now,  that  1  ever,  on  any  occasion,  unconditionally  said,  that 
llev,  G.  E.  was  childish,  is  a  notorious,  downright  and  corrupt  false- 
hood. Though  such  men  might  possibly  swear  to  the  reverse,  who 
have  the  impudence  to  certify,  that  things  were  said,  which  never,  at 
all,  in  any  shape,  occurred  in  their  presence,  or  any  where  else. 

For  an  answer  to  the  next  note,  marked  thus,  (*)  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  the  answer  given  on  former  pages,  by  my  brethren. 

In  relation  to  the  next  note  marked  in  the  same  manner,  page  16, 
the  reader  is  also  referred  to  the  above  mentioned  answer.  I  shall, 
nevertheless,  remark,  that  the  sentence  :  ''  They  give  it  as  their  opinion, 
that  it  is  just  what  the  Devil  wants,  that  is,  to  get  him  to  quit  preach- 
ing," is  a  sentence  under  a  distinct  period.  And  Aristottle's  definition 
of  a  sentence  is:  '^  A  form  of  speech  which  hath  a  beginning  and  an 
end  within  itself,  and  is  of  such  a  length  as  to  be  easily  comprehended 
at  once."  Now  if  the  above  unfortunate  sentence  were  given  for  a 
sentence  in  the  examples  of  parsing,  the  personal  pronoun  him,  could 
not  refer  to  Mr.  M.  in  that  sentence  without  constructing  the  sentence 
different  to  its  present  form.  I  suppose  if  this  "Re.  S."  so  called,  were 
to  undertake  to  parse  some  of  the  sentences  of  which  it  speaks,  and  has 
printed,  we  would  see  some  artificial,  and  very  superficial  exertions 
made. 

It  seems  that  this  little  "Re.  S."  does  not  hesitate,  to  attempt  to 
make  the  impression  on  the  public  mind,  that  my  brethren  are  desti- 
tute of  ordinary  discernment,  or  that  they  are  "  blinded  by  the  demon 
prejudice."  A  demon  is  a  devil.-  That  my  brethren  are  so  very  su- 
perficial,— or  to  give  it  in  your  own  language, — "  can  it  be  possible, 
that  the  most  superficial  mind,  could  not  detect  such  ambitious  per- 
version of  truth,  unless  blinded  by  the  demon  prejudice." 

That  my  brethren,  who  heard  me  read  the  minutes,  are  so  stupid  as 
not  to  be  equal  to  the  most  "  superficial  mind;"  or  that  if  they  are  not 
so  stupid,  must  be  branded  under  any  and  every  other  consideration, 
with  the  epithet  of  "  demon  prejudice,"  which  is  a  barefaced  slander. 
You  must  recollect  that  the  minutes  were  read  in  the  presence  of  the 
wisest  and  best  of  citizens,  and  members  our  churches  in  this  region 
of  country,  hold,  and  are  excelled  by  none  other.  Sirs  I  my  brethren 
at  any  and  every  church  in  which  I  officiate,  are  so  ready  of  discernment, 
that  an  impostor,  though  once  in  high  standing,  must  not  think  that 
he  can  commit  dirty  tricks  right  under  their  nose,  and  that  they  will 
never  discover  them.  Nay,  they  are  so  far  from  being  "  blinded  by  the  de- 
mon prejudice,"  that  they  will  support  no  ungodly  minister,  or  character. 

In  relation  to  what  is  said  on  page  17,  in  the  three  first  underplotted 
paragraphs,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  report  appended  to  our  last 
minutes ;  and  also  to  the  reply  from  St.  John's  church. 

As  to  the  note  marked  thus,  (f)  we  read  :  "  We  would  inform  the 
Rev.  H.  that  reference  was  had  to  the  action  of  the  Tennessee  Synod 
at  the  time  when  the  constitution  was  ratified,"  &c.     Answer :  Turn  to 
the  19th  page  of  your  former  minutes.     We  read  :  "  2nd.  That  church  -) 
decisions  arc  considered  final ;"  Matt.  18.     ••  ^Vh^.t  th**v  bind  on  earth 

V 


21 

Bliall  be  bound  in  Heaven."  Sirs !  to  prove  tliat ''  the  clmreli  decirilona 
were  considered  final,"  you  appeal  directly  to  Matt.  18,  and  not  to 
the  time  the  constitution  was  ratified.  This  is  very  evident,  not  only 
from  the  manner  in  which  yoU  quote  the  te:st,  but  also  from  what  you 
say  immrdlateli/  after,  viz:  '*  Tiie  church  receives  her  authority  direct 
from  Christ,  to  act  in  a  congregational  capacity."  Now,  why  did  you 
quote  this  text  at  all,  if  you  did  not  intend  thereby  to  prove,  how  tho 
decisions  of  the  church  of  Jesus  t'hrist  are  viewed  according  to  the 
blessed  volume ;  if  this  is  not  the  design,  tlien  your  quotation  is  quite 
superfluous.  In  the  note  alrcad}-  mentioned,  it  is  said:  "AYhy  docs 
not  Mr.  11.  prove  a  perversion  of  the  text;  both  sentences  refer  to  the 
same  object.^'  If  both  sentences  refer  to  the  same  object,  I  would 
ask,  to  what  object?  Will  3Mm  answer,  to  th*^  action  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  at  the  time  the  constitution  \<2iS  ratified  ?  If  .?o,  I  tell  you  there 
is  no  such  language  to  be  found  there,  as,  "The  church  decisions  wore 
considered  final,"  '^  what  they  bind,"  &c.  You  no  doubt  saw,  that 
there  is  nothing  to  justify  this  end  of  the  story;  and  therefore  betake 
yourselves  to  another  refuge,'  in  ease  this  tale  wont  do,  and  say  "  The: 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  quoted  the  scriptures  in  the  same 
manner."  This  is  at  once  an  acknowledgment  on  your  part,  that  I 
embraced  3'our  first  intende'd  idea,  according  to  the  natural  reading  of 
the  minutes ;  otherwise  yoa  would  not  have  taken  this  last  resort.  Now, 
for  you  to  claim  equal  authority  M'ith  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
to  quote  texts,  and  give  them  a  rendering  which  the  original  will  not 
justify,  is  not  only  self  assuming,  but  very  dangerous;  and  that  you 
can  justify  the  rendering  you  have  ^iven  Matt,  l!^,  I  flatly  deny. 

It  seems  that  you  can  take  almost  any  authorit}^,  and  all  ^rith  you  is 
right,  liut  you  seem  to  be. so  very  self-zealous,  that  should  a  criticism 
upcm  human  composition  be  made,  you  can  soon  discover  a  plan  to  con- 
vict such,  "of  convicting  the  Almighty  himself  of  tlte  grossest  wicked- 
ness," though  it  be  upon  no  other  ground,  than  that  you  have  found 
certain  texts  in  the  English  translation  employing  the  preposition  simi- 
larly ;  and  at  the  same  tijjpe,  you  are  unable,  and  I  pledge  myself  to 
maintain  it  that  you  are  uriiible  to  prove,  with  all  the  assistance  you  can 
procure,  that  to  substitute  the  preposition  against  for  icithj  in  the  texts 
you  cited,  would  "  convict  the  Almighty  himself  of  the  grossest  wicked-- 
ness."  Notwithstanding  the  fi\ct,  that  the  English  translation  of  the 
Scriptures,  in  the  main,  is  the  best  that  can  be  given,  I  would  never- 
theless, rather  call  in  question  one  half  of  the  English  translation^ 
than  to  intimate  that  1  had  authority  to  alter  one  word,  or  change  one 
letter  in  the  original,  even  if  I  discovered  that  the  inspired  writers  of  the 
Nev/  Tcstartient,  in  one  half,  or  all  of  their  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament,  had  employed  different  words,  or  omitted  some  entirely  or 
paraphrased  the  language  somewhat. 

As  to  your  statement, — "  that  it  is  Miller  and  not  a  Ilenkel  which 
has  become  the  subject  of  persecution,^'  I  shall  let  the  reader  jiulge. 

Eelative  to  the  note  marked,  thus,  (J)  I  refer  the  reader  to  the  reply 
from  St.  John's  churchy  on  a  former  pnge.    I  shall;  nevertheless  remark^ 


'} 


Z») 


that  r  was  not  present  at  the  aession  of  our  Synod  in  1847,  and  conse- 
quently the  information  I  have,  relative  to  this  matter,  I  gathered  from 
ro.^pcctable  members  who  were  present,  and  from  the  minutes  of  that 
session. 

Now  as  there  are  various  questions  in  this  note,  proposed  with  paf- 
tioular  reference  to  mc,  and  also  accusing  Synod  with  not  having 
treated  petitions  at  this  session,  with  '^common  courtesy ''  and  ^'civility ;^' 
I  sliall,  in  the  first  place,  proceed  to  notice  the  charge  against  Synod 
in  this  respect,  as  I  am  personally  iniplicated,  (though  not  present  at 
this  session)  from  the  manner  and  connexion  in  which  your  question 
and  answer  are  placed.  I  shall  reason  the  case  from  your  own  ques- 
tion and  answer,  and  also  from  statements  made  in  your  minutes  of  1849. 
In  the  note  above  alluded  to,  we  read, — "but  what  did  the  petitioners 
in  1847,  ask  for? — Why,  it  was  for  the  Synod  to  decide  the  existing 
difficulties  by  the  word  of  God,  &c,,  which  they  utterly  refused  to  do, 
and  evaded  the  demand  by  a  majority  of  votes."  What?  Did  the 
petitioners  call  upon  Synod  to  decide  existing  difficulties  by  the  Word 
of  Gpd!!  What?  decide  ''that  which  has  been  decided  by  God's 
Word ! !  I'*^  Do  you  not  say  on  page  20  of  your  niinutes  of  1849 :  "  This 
is  to  place  Synod  above  God  and  his  Word— this  is  not  only  unconsti- 
tutional, but  blasphemy?''  Also  page  11  same  minutes,  do  we  not 
fead  the  following,  in  relation  to  the  attempt  made  by  those  petitioners 
to  enumerate  certain  (supposed)  violations :  ''  1st.  The  act  of  receiving 
(into  the  Synod)  the  case  of  Mr.  Miller,  which  had  been  de- 
cided according  to  the  Word  of  Go^'?'^  What  ?  Had  it  been  decided 
by  the  Word  of  God  ?  Again,  Rev.  G.  E.  argues,  that  Mr  M's  case 
was  out  of  roach  of  Synod.  (See  his  letter,  page  24  of  your  minutes 
of  1849.)  Does  he  not  say:  "Now  brethren,  I  did  believe,  and  do 
still  believe  that  Mr.  Miller's  case,  was  at  that  time,  out  of  reach  of  this 
body."  What?  Mr.  M's  case  out  of  the  reach  of  Synod ! !  Again, 
page  20,  same  minutes  :  "  3rd.  The  resolve  of  the  Synod  in  a  case  over 
which  she  had  no  jurisdiction."  What  ?  Had  she  wo  jurisdiction  over 
it?  Same  minute  page  17,  we  read  :  "And  asked  nothing  at  their 
hands,  but  that  the  Synod  decide  existing  difficulties,  by  the  Word  of 
God,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Constitution."  Now,  I  ask, 
had  the  Synod  any  authority  over  the  case  ?  If  not,  I  ask,  why  did  you 
ask  Synod  to  decide  that  which  she  had  no  authority  to  decide  ?  But, 
if  you  answer  that  she  had  authority,  I  shall  then  ask,  how  does  it 
come  that  Mr.  M's  case  was  out  of  her  reach  ?  If  all  you  have  said,  be 
true,  then  you  have  no  possible  cause  of  complaint,  as  to  their  refusal. 
For  had  they  attempted  to  decide  it,  you  have  a  sentence  passed,  which 
if  true,  is  enough  to  shock  poor  trembling  Zion,  and  to  cause  her  to 
refuse ;  iot  you  say,  "  This  is  to  place  the  Synod  above  God  and  his 
Word — this  is  not  only  unconstitutional,  but  blasphemy."  It  seems 
you  accuse  Synod  for  deciding  the  case,  and  you  accuse  her  for  not 
deciding  it ! !  Could  she  decide  it,  and  yet  not  decide  it  ?  It  seems 
you  have  matter  so  arranged,  that  you  are  prepared  to  accuse,  let  Syn- 
od do  a^  ?he  may.     If  she  refuses  to  decide  the  case  she  is  condemned  ^ 


2H  : 

if  she  decides,  she  is  guilty  of  uuconBtitutiouality  and  blasphemy  ! !  But 
you  say  it  is,  "  A  po3r  rule  that  will  not  work  both  ways."  But  grant- 
ing all  you  may  have  intended  by  this,  I  cannot  see,  how  Synod  could 
decide,  and  not  decide — reach  that  which  was,  as  Rev.  E.  says,  <'  out 
of  her  reach,''  &c. 

The  note  continues,  (page  18  last  min.)  "Mr.  H.  has  said  that  Mil- 
ler made  the  petitioners  say  what  they  did  not  want   to  say,    and  he 
knew  it.     How  does  Mr.  11.  know  this  ?     Will  Mr.  H.  furnish  us  with 
the  proof?"     Answer :  This  has  already  been  noticed  in  the  reply  from 
St.  John's  church,  and  also  somewhat  elucidated  on  a  former   page. 
The  truth  is,  I  never  used  such  terras  as  this  little  "Re.    S."  in   its 
malice  has  given.     I  said,  provided  Mr.  M.  wrote  the  petitions  from 
North  Carolina,  and  provided  the  petitions  are  to  be  understood  as  they 
read,  I  supposed  that  Mr.  M.  had  caused  the  petitioners  to  say  what 
they  did  not  wish  to  say,  as  I  clid  not  think  that  they  wished  to  speak 
against  themselves.     That  the  common  reader  may  be  enabled  to  un- 
derstand, I  shall  give  the  list  of  demonstrative  pronouns,  viz :  this  and 
ihat^  and  their  plurals  these  and  those^  and  former  and  latter.      This 
and  these  refer  to  the  nearest  persons  or  things,  or  the  last  mentioned ; 
that  and  those  to  the  most  distant/  or  first  mentioned,     Example:  I 
will  say,  I  have  two  apples,  one  red  one,  and  one  striped  one ;  now  I 
will  say,  this  is  for  John  and  that  is  for  James.    Now  common  reader, 
which  is  John's  and  which  is  James'  apple  ?     The  only  way  for  you  to 
deteri^ine,  is,  to  notice  which  is  first,   and  which  is  last  mentioned. 
You  will  discover  that  the  red  apple  is  first  mentioned,  and  of  course 
must  be  John's  apple  because,  that  refers  to  the  first  mentioned,  or  the 
most  distant.     I  shall  give  an  example  of  objects  in   the  plural.     I 
will  say,  I  have  ten  sheep,  five  black  ones,  and  five  white  ones.     Now 
I  shall  decide,  and  say,  those  arc  for  James  and  these  are  for  John. 
Common  Reader !  which  are' James'  sheep?     Evidently  the  black  ones, 
because  they  are  first  mentioned ;  and  as  decided,  I  said  those  are  for 
James :    just  as  clearly  so,  us  if  I  had    said,  the  former   arc  for 
James,  and  the  latter  are  John's.     Now,  common  reader,  turn  to  the 
15th  page  of  their  minutes  for  1849.     And  let  me  invite   the  eager 
graduates  to  look  on  too,  who  say,  "  will  Mr.  H.  furnish  us  with  proof.* 
Well,  we  read,  "They  then  petitioned  for  a  redress  of  grievances,  and 
(if  not  misinformed)  there  were  between  three  or  four  hundred  peti- 
tioners for  Mr.  Miller,  and  some  twenty  or  thirty  against   him,  and 
some  of  those  have  since  said  that  they  did  not  understand  the  design 
of  their  petition,  when  they  signed  it."     Now,  common  reader  !  which 
«>.lass  of  petitioners,  according  to  the  language,  did  not  understand  the 
design  of  their  petition  when  they  signed  it  ?     Evidently  some  of  tho 
three  or  four  Iiundred. — As  evidently  so,  as  I  have  decided,  that  the 
five  black  sheep  are  for  James.     Now  Mr.  M.  or  Mr.  Synod,  was  it 
your  intention  to  publish  to  the  world  the  fact  that  your  own  petition- 
ors  did  not  understand  the  design  of  their  petition,  when  they  signed 
?t.     Again,  do  you'suppose  that  the  petitioners  wished  it  published  to 
the  world,  that  thry  did  not  understand  the  design   of  their  petition 


27 

when  they  signed  it?  Now,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned  ubout  that  partkii-: 
lar,  I  think  I  have  furnished  proof  sufficient. 

I  shall  here  drop  a  few  remarks  in  relation  to  what  is  said,  page  IG 
of  your  last  minutes.  "  He  spent  some  time  in  laboring  to  prove  that 
Mr.  Miller  in  his  own  remarks  on  page  5,  minute  of  1849,  called  the 
Word  of  God  a  Symbol. '^ 

I  shall  quote  his  own  language,  viz:  ^^But  that  if  to  believe  the 
Holy  Scriptures  as  they  were  revealed  to  man,  as  a  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  if  to  adhere  to  the  Augustan  Confession,  and  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  constituted  a  man  a  member  of  that 
body,  that  he  never  had  forsaken  those  Symbols  of  the  Church,"  &c. 
^'  Those  Symbolsl''^^Which  S3m-ibols  ?  Mr.  M.  must  either  have  re- 
ference to  the  Augustan  Confession,  or  the  Holy  Scriptures,  for  the 
Constitution  is  no  symbol !  And  Augsburg  Confession  is  singular  j 
hence  it  would  be  incorrect  to  say  those  symbols.  And  even  if  Augs- 
burg Confession  were  more  than  one  symbol,  in  order  specifically  to 
point  out  his  objects,  he  should  have  said,  these  symbols  instead  of 
those.  The  common  reader  is  requested  to  bear  in  mind  (as  already- 
directed,)  how  the  demonstratives,  this  and  that,  these  and  those,  also 
former  and  latter,  are  used  in  proper  conversation  and  phraseology  j 
and  he  will  be  enabled  to  see,  (when  misrepresentation  and  perversion 
are  taken  away,  which  has  been  so  copiously  poured  out  upon  me,) 
that  I  am  able  to  maintain  whatsoever  I  have  said  in  relation  to  their 
minutes.  ^^ 

The  few  last  sentences,  in  the  note,  page  18,  read  :  "  As  to  the  pe- 
titioners not  understanding  the  design  of  these  petitions,  they  must 
answer  this  for  themselves.  It  seems  he  referred  to  no  particular  one." 
I  answer  that  I  never  intended  to  refer  to  any  other,  than  those  you 
refer  to,  which  are  some  of  the  three  or  four  hundred.  But,  probably, 
trutli  Siud  principle  are  not  concerned  in  such  portions  of  your  minutes. 
Consult  page  7  of  your  last  minutes. 

As  to  the  charge  made  in  the  same  note,  to  wit :  "  He  also  said  that 
the  Rev.  Easterly  v/as  not  the  author  of  the  letter  appended  to  the  min- 
utes of  1849."  I  answer,  that  I  never  made  any  such  dogmatical 
assertion.  And  it  is  not  necessary  for  you  to  prove  it  by  such  men 
who  will  certify  to  things  they  have  never  heard  ;  or  by  such  who  will 
associate  with  them  after  learning  their  clandestine  schemes.  Men, 
pretending  to  Christianity,  who  will  compare  me,  or  any  other  human, 
to  the  brutes,  and  that  without  a  cause,  more  than,  if  possible,  to  de- 
stroy my  reputation,  can  within  their  own  organization,  prove  what  they, 
desire.  ' 

The  last  note  page  18,  says:  '^Rev.  Easterly  has  indeed  proven 
from  the  plain  word  of  Grod  the  position  which  he  undertook  to  prove. 
How  Mr.  H.  can  prove  quite  different  from  those  texts,  is  to  us  a  mys- 
tery, unless  he  has  learned  the  art  of  explaining  a  book  that  says  one 
thing  and  means  another,"  Answer:  That  I  ever  said  I  would  prove 
quite  different  from  those  texts  to  what  Mr.  E.  intended  to  prove,,  is 
notoriously  and  corruptly  fake.      See  testimony  from  St  John's  churek> 


28 

on  ft  former  page.  You  (the  Re.  Synod)  may  however  pronounce  them 
so  very  superficial,  or  look  upon  them  as  being  "blinded  by  the  demon 
prejudice/'  But  you  can  say  about  them  what  you  will,  they  are  men 
T)f  as  good  natural  sense  as  the  best  you  hold;  and  in  point  of  morals, 
it.  is  a  slander  to  intimate  that  they  are  "  blinded  by  the  demon  preju- 
dice,'' or  to  compare  their  characters  to  those  who  thus  abuse  them. 

Again,  "  Unless  he  has  learned  the  art  of  explaining  a  book  that  says 
one  thing  and  means  another."  What?  Does  your  book  say  one  thing 
and  mean  another  ! !  It  seems  so  in  many  places.  But  why  have  you 
■written  it  so  ?  "Was  it  with  the  intention  to  deceive  ? — It  must  be  a 
strange  book  indeed,  and  well  adapted  to  the  understanding  of  ^'plahi 
men! ! F*^'  Surely  ''a  book  that  says  one  thing  and  means  another" 
cannot  be  free  from  error.  Ah  I  But  so  far  as  truth  and  principle  are 
concerned,  we  have  discovered  no  errors,  &c. — ! ! !  Or  if  you  have 
reference  to  the  Scriptures,  as  the  ''book  that  says  one  thin. 2;  and 
means  another,"  you  should  by  all  means  prove  it.  Or  what  book  do 
you  refer  to  ?  That  the  Scriptures  say  one  thing  and  mean  another,  I 
flatly  deny.  Now,  for  you  to  signify,  that  I  would  make  an  attempt  to 
explain  them  contrary  to  their  original  import,  is  a  corrupt  slander. 
And  for  you  to  argue  that  the  preposition  against,  would,  when  substi- 
tuted for  the  preposition  with,  in  all  the  texts  you  cited,  convict  the 
Almighty  himself  of  the  grossest  wickedness,  is  a  barefaced  sophism. 
The  Almighty  is  in  all  senses  opjwsed  to  or  in  opposition  to  wickedness. 
Now  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  do  you  suppose  that  Mrchael,  th«^.  Arch- 
angel, joined  or  united  with  the  devil  ?  If  in  any  sense  whatever,  it  is 
to  be  opposed  to,  or  to  be  against  him.  Now  if  you^  can  justify  the 
opposite  idea,  use  your  pleasure;  I  shall  not  embrace  it.  Dear  render, 
turn  to  all  the  texts  quoted,  that  are  cited  in  the  minutes,  which  can  be 
found,  ^»d  consider  as  yt)u  read,  whether  it  would  convict  the  Almighty 
of  the  grossest  wickedness,  to  substitute  the  preposition  against  for  uith, 
bearing  in  mind  the  signification  of  both  with  and  against,  and  you  will 

be  enabled  to  see,  upon  what  ground  a  P e  has  attempted  to 

convict  me  of  Sinning  against  the  Holy  Ghost.     No  doubt  were  it  in  the 

P e's  power,  the  jioor  creature  (sometimes  compared  to  brutes, 

and  sometimes  called  understrapper)  might  begin  to  think  of  the  tor- 
ments of  the  Holy  Inquisition — the  faggot — the  gibbet,  &c. 

As  to  the  texts  quoted  by  the  Rev.  G.  E.  in  his  letter,  minutes  of 
1849,  page  25  :  I  shall  merely  remark,  that  the  texts.  Matt.  18  :  22, 
34,  35.  Luke  6  :  86,  87.  Rom.  2 :  1,  2,  8,  4.  Gal.  6 :  1—5.  St. 
John  8:  1—11,  provided  they  are  applicable  to  Mr.  M's.  case,  teach 
me  that  he  must  be  guilty  as  charged ;  otherwise,  that  there  is  no  dif- 
ference between  the  conduct  of  christians  and  heathens,  or  persons  in 
an  unregenerated  state.  And  if  there  is  no  difference  between  unre- 
generated  persons,  and  tljose  who  have  risen  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God,  as  to  their  conduct,  I  see  no  use  for  the  deciplinary 
part  of  the  Blessed  Volume  at  all. 

Now,  for  one  to  confess  that  he  is  overtaken  in  a  fault,  does  not 
pnfy  thereby  acknowledge  himself  guilty  of  a  fault,  but  thereby  con- 


2i) 

fesses  that  he  has  committed  a  crime,  or  i'uult  of  which  he  khuo  not 
suppose  his  brethren,  who  are  spiritual,  to  be  guilty  in  the  same  sense 
that  he  is  euilty  ;  otherwise,  it  will  follow,  that  those  who  are  spiritual, 
and  walk  after  the  spirit,  are  in  all  respects,  like  those  who  walk  after 
the  flesh.  Hence,  the  dead  might  call  upon  the  dead,  to  restore  them 
to  life,  with  the  same  propriety  that  he  who  is  fallen  down,  would  call 
on  him  who  is  fallen  down,  to  lift  him  up,  whilst  his  partner  was  as 
flat  down  and  as  helpless  as  himself. 

The  woman,  John  8,  did  not  deny  bei^g  guilty  as  charged  by  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees;  and  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  brought  her, 
were  as  far  from  being  Spirtual  as  she  was— they  did  it  "  tempting  him, 
that  they  might  have' to  accuse  him,"  v,  Gj  and  being  in  an  unrcgen- 
erated,  hypocritical  state,  were  in  all  respects,  just  as  susceptible  of 
conviction  as  she  was,  which  cannot  be  said  of  one  who  is  a  christian 
or  spiritual.  Now,  that  Jesus  did  not  condemn  her  to  be  stoned,  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  Moses,  does  not  imply,  that  he  approved  of  her 
conduct,  nor  that  he  viewed  it  as  not  being  sinful.  Hence,  when  he 
says,  "  neither  do  I  condemn  thee,"  we  must  understand  him  as  speak- 
ing with  a  reference  to  the  sentence  of  the  law  of  Moses,  which  required 
that  such  be  stoned  to  death.  It  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  office 
of  Jesus  Christ,  to  inflict  bodily  punishments,  &c.,— neither  of  his 
church.  She  nevertheless,  possesses  ecclesiastical  power  to  excommu- 
nicate an  ungodly  and  impenitent  member.  Christ  says  to  the  woman  : 
''  G-0  0  and  sin  no  more."  This  proves  that  he  looked  upon  the  action 
as  being  sinful.  Now  if  the  Rev.  A.  M.  is  innocent,  why  did  the  llev. 
E.  introduce  this  in  his  defence?  May  we  not  conjecture,  that  the 
Rev.  A.  M.  acknowledged  his  guilt  to  the  Rev.  E.  ?  If  so,  and  with 
true  repentance,  the  Rev.  E.,  as  a  christian,  was  bound  to  forgive  him 
according  to  Matt.  18,  &c.  Likewise  are  we  willing  to  forgive  him,  so 
soon  as  he  will  confess,  and  promise  to  do  so  no  more.  But  Mr.  M. 
is  not  so  humble  as  this  woman  taken  in  the  act  of  adultery ;  she  denied 
it  not;  he  denies  being  guilty,  to  hear  him  talk.  Now  if  he  is  not  guilty, 
he  can  neither  be  condemned  nor  acquitted;  and  if  he  has  committed 
no  trespass,  and  is  overtaken  in  no  fault,  he  can  neither  be  restored, 
nor  forgiven;  for  how  to  forgive  an  iunocont  man,  I  do  not  understand. 

As  it  regards  the  ballance  of  the  texts  quoted  in  the  letter,  with  re-, 
ference  to  what  bodi/  a  minister  is  accountable  for  his  conduct,  &c., 
the  reader  is  referred  to  the  report  appended  to  our  last  minutes.  As 
to  what  is  said  in  the  latter  part  of  the  last  note,  page  18,  viz  :  ''Who 
did  not  only  vindicate  the  character  of  his  own  father  under  similar 
charges,  but  indirectly  his  own,"  &c.  I  answer,  that  Mr.  M.  ever 
vindicated  ray  father's  character  under  such  a  charge  as  the  said  M.  is 
charged  with,  is  not  true.  That  the  charge  was  heterogeneous,  and 
not  ''similar,"  is  known  by  all  who  know  anything  about  it.  And 
for  the  said  M.  or  the  '.'Re.  Synod  "  so  called,  to  try  to  reproach  me  in 
such  a  manner,  is  contrary  to  every  principle  of  honesty. 

That  my  father  was  innocent,  and  falsely  accused,  is  apparent  from 
every  accompanying  circumstance,  which  has  been  clearly  evinced  to  an 


30 

impartial  public,  by  men  of  the  deepest  moral  integrity.  To  illustrate 
this  fact  is  uncalled  for,  by  an  intelligent,  impartial  and  reading  com- 
munity. The  establishment  of  father's  reputation  depended  not  on  Mr. 
M's  vindication ;  and  had  Mr.  M.  no  better  ground  to  establish  Rev. 
D's  innocence,  than  I  have  for  M's,  I  know  he  must  have  acted  contra- 
ry to  the  dictates  of  a  clear  conscience.  And  if  Mr.  M.  believed  that 
the  Rev.  J).  H.  was  guilty,  and  aided  in  smuggling  his  guilt,  he  is  as 
guilty  as  the  man  himself,  and  deserves  no  credit.  Now,  if  father  even 
was  guilty,  Mr.  M.  and  his  party,  as  christians,  and  no  way  else,  should 
attempt  to  throw  it  at  me.  If,  however,  the  reader  should  be  inclined 
to  think  otherwise,  I  must,  in  humility,  bear  the  reproach,  which  I  can 
very  easily  do.  And  why  should  I  distress  myself  with  apprehensions 
of  peril  ?  I  have  access  to  God,  which  is  not  only  an  indefeasible  pri- 
vilege, but  a  kind  of  ambulatory  garrison.  Those  who  make  known 
their  requests  unto  God,  and  rely  upon  his  protecting  care,  he  gives  his 
angels  charge  over  their  welfare.  His  angels  are  commissioned  to  es- 
cort them  in  their  travelling;  and  to  hold  up  their  goings,  that  they 
dash  not  their  foot  against  a  stone.  Nay,  he  himself  condescends  to  be 
their  guardian,  and  "  keeps  all  their  bones,  so  not  one  of  them  is  bro- 
ken.'' The  articles  of  this  grand  alliance  are  recorded  in  the  book  of 
Revelation ;  and  will,  when  it  is  for  the  real  benefit  of  believerS;  assur- 
edly be  made  good  in  the  administration  of  Providence. 

Discontinued,  till  duty  calls.  ^ 


..>'. 


THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF 

NORTH  CAROLINA 


THE  COLLECTION  OF 
NORTH  CAROLINIANA 


JOSEPH  RUZICXA 

BOOWSfHDf  »3 

-  -  -  -  --oRe.  MD 


